Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through May 19, 2003	25		05/19 12:45pm
	Archive through November 12, 2014	25		11/12 03:03pm

Obviously I am confused.

The proposal at the top is for a drone able to control other drones.

A drone is a size class 7 unit, whether it is a type-VI, type-I, type-IV, or type-IIIXX drone.

The only size class 7 units able to control drones are Def Sats and Captor Mines. These do not move at warp speed, and have very limited control capabilities, and cannot accept control of drones (or plasma torpedoes, or other seeking weapons) they, themselves, did not launch.

Size class 6 units generally have very restricted drone control ratings, and very limited abilities to accept control of drones from other units. Size-1 fighters generally (if armed with seeking weapons) can control two seeking weapons (excluding the F-15 which can control four). The exceptions among the size-1 fighters (excluding the F-15) are a fighter with drone control pods (up to 12 seeking weapons), a two-seat/electronic warfare fighter (12 seeking weapons), but these can only control seeking weapons launched by a fighter that is part of their assigned squadron.

Other size-1 units include an MRS shuttle (six seeking weapons), a SWAC shuttle (off the top of my head, up to 12 seeking weapons with the use of a special sensor) which can control seeking weapons launched from any legal source.

Size-2 fighters, and size-3 and size-4 bombers can all control six seeking weapons and can accept control of seeking weapons launched by other units not limited to those of their assigned squadron.

I again note that given the above I do not see how it is possible to have a drone module that can provide guidance for other seeking weapons.

If such a drone module existed, it would be retrofitted to all size-1 fighters able to operate seeking weapons, eliminating one of their weaknesses, that being that a fighter controlling drones where there is no other non-fighter to control drones that is destroyed can have control of its drones taken over by another fighter, rather than those drones being removed by the destruction of the fighter.

If this drone module exists at all, then you do have to tear up the rulebook about the limits of fighter drone control, i.e., any fighter can assume guidance of any drone launched by any legal unit within the limits of its drone control rating, and if the module on this drone can control more than two drones, than so can a fighter.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 01:58 pm: Edit

What I am trying to say in the above is that this topic started talking about a module for a drone. If that is no longer what is being discussed, I apologize, but as noted there are historical background problems with a drone module suddenly appearing with drone control abilities that exceed those of larger units.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 02:16 pm: Edit

How about looking at this a different way. Have a SS launch a specific load of drones (1x type-IV, 4x type-I). The type-IV has no warhead, but has a stripped-down limited version of a seeking weapon control pod for it's payload.

The type-Is can be of any type, but when launched are not programmed with a target, but rather slave-linked to follow the type-IV instead.

The Type-IV can be programmed with either a specific target or a ballistic course. The ship controlling the type-IV can transmit targets for the IV, in turn would program the type-Is go after.

Due to the complexity of the set-up, the controlling ship would need to dedicate FOUR seeking weapon control channels to the type-IV, regardless to the number of drones it was controlling. The type-IV drone could control no more than four drones at any one time.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Yes, it could be possible to launch three type-IVs using the same parameters.

And no... the type-IV drone cannot control type-VI drones.

I also rather not see this as GW technology, perhaps X1 or X2 tech.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 03:03 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The type-IV has no warhead, but has a stripped-down limited version of a seeking weapon control pod for it's payload.

---

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Randy,

I apologize, I wasn't clear as to what I was proposing.

I never proposed that the Type-IV drone could control any drones launched from any ship, including the parent ship. Just the ones that were launched from the same SS.

A seeking weapon control pod is the size of a type-I drone. It can control up to six drones at a time. These drones could come from anywhere and can be cycled through multiple times so long as the number doesn't exceed six.

I propose "stripped-down" to mean that the ability to switch from drone to drone is lost and that no more than four channels are available.

And that "limited" to mean that the drones it is able to control must come from the same launch system as the heavy drone doing the controlling (i.e. from an SS, not from 3-5 drones racks on the same ship). All of the drones must be launched at the same time.

Basically all this does is to allow drones from a SS to have a delayed target acquisition after launch.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 05:17 pm: Edit

George Duffy:

Problems (NOTE: The following is not "I declare this dead by fiat," it is "these are the problems you are running into."):

The seeking weapon control pod is the size of a drone, true, and uses the space the drone uses for fuel and its engine in addition to the space the drone uses for its warhead to do its job, so you are still trying to cram a quart into a pint container. If you can get the seeking weapon control systems down that small, we can change the seeking weapon control pod from adding just six channels to adding 12 and we do not need to use two pods to add 12.

Second, the pod has no inherent ability to operate on its own (you cannot drop a pod outside of your shuttle bay or use a transporter to beam it into space with it programmed to guide drones to a target), it uses the fighter's targeting system, all of which you cannot cram into a the drone once again (again, if you could, then the fighter would already be able to control more than two drones normally).

Third, the drones a pod can control cannot "come from anywhere." A size-1 fighter with a drone control pod operates pretty much like a size-1 electronic warfare fighter, i.e., the fighter can only control drones launched by other fighters of its own squadron. It cannot control drones launched by fighters of another squadron, accept control of drones launched by a ship, or a DefSat, or a scatter-pack, or a captor mine, only those drones launched by a fighter or multi-role shuttle that is part of its own squadron.

Now, yes, a larger fighter (or bomber) can control drones launched from any source, and if the larger fighter (or bomber) has a seeking weapon pod it can control 12 drones, it does not need two pods to do that as it can control six drones normally. Again, however, notice the difference. A Heavy Fighter can control six drones normally and a single seeking weapon control pod will increase its control to 12, but two seeking weapon control pods will not further increase its control. But a single space fighter loses its inherent control rating in favor of the pod (it cannot control six with the pod plus its two inherent control channels).

Please also notice that seeking weapon control pods are relatively rare and restricted. A squadron can have one (1) pod (not a pair of pods) as part of its stockpile, and can purchase at most a second pod (not a second pair of pods). And you are proposing that this be much cheaper and more expendable since you are packing the systems into a one-use throwaway drone.

I cannot really answer the question (not posed, but inherent in the design) of how the seeking weapon control drone cannot accept transfers of control, but is in essence doing so when released from the scatter-pack (the mechanics of scatter-pack operations provide that the drones are released and units must be able to assume guidance of the drones at that point, although mechanically a ship is allowed to drop the guidance of the scatter pack shuttle itself to pick up the sixth drone released). So technically at the point of release from the scatter pack the proposed drone module has no control over the other drones and is assuming guidance at that point. There is no game system allowing or requiring that guidance be provided to the drones on a scatter pack prior to their release, in point of fact the use of "Ballistic Scatter-Packs" very much makes plain this is not necessary. You can launch a ballistic scatter-pack, go passive (perhaps because you needed to launch a wild weasel) and as long as you have your fire control back up before the ballistic scatter-pack releases you can control the released drones. So the scatter-pack's drones are unguided until the point of release, which means your proposed module is "accepting a transfer of control" and doing so at a point where it is not itself under guidance (i.e., something must be taking control of it at that point the same as the other drones being released).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 07:56 pm: Edit

SPP: There is a hand shaped red mark on my fore head now.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 10:22 pm: Edit

This confusion may be my fault since perhaps I changed the topic of a 10 year old thread...there were perhaps more logical places to have posited my idea.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, November 13, 2014 - 11:35 am: Edit

Dennis Surdu:

It is possible I have missed the change in the topic.

Is the topic about a drone able to guide other drones, or has it changed to something else that I have missed?

I am busy and may not have read the whole topic as closely as I should have (apologies offered for that) and missed some new direction it has taken.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 13, 2014 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Drones cannot control drones, and that won't change, not even in X6.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Thursday, November 13, 2014 - 08:53 pm: Edit

My little drone vehicle idea would not mean that they would need to control themselves but the ship's drone control rating would still apply. I was just thinking of an updated idea for launching them with new tactical implications. Sort of like a global hawk with Hellfire missiles. The drone rules seem like they could use some 21st century ideas is all. Perhaps with the addition of data links in the game? I believe, for example, a navy ship recently attacked and intercepted a simulated target that was being tracked by another ships sensors.

Maybe certain ships with established data links in small fleet actions could control a drone launching platform for another ship?

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Thursday, November 13, 2014 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Dennis,

Basically the system already exists in the remote-control rules (J15.0).

What you are asking for is the equivalent of the Borak HK fighter which could fire drones instead of phasers for all of the other empires.

Borak HKs are remote-controlled drone/fighters that can have their guidance switched between ships. Primarily because all Borak frontline ships are considered casual carriers. In other empires this could only be done by using their carriers or specified ships as the controller. See (J15.33)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 11:21 am: Edit

Dennis Surdu:

Global Hawk with Hellfire Missiles: See Multi-warhead drone.

As to a ship attacking and intercepting a target being tracked by another ship's systems, we already have an ability to "pass on" control of seeking weapons from one ship to another. While not exactly the same thing, it is a capability that is in the game and does come into play when ship A launches a seeking weapon and for any reason (such as having to use a wild weasel) "loses tracking" another ship can pick up that guidance.

As to a platform that can launch drones on command, we already have that with the Remote-Controlled fighter rules, and I do not really see a need to allow all ships to have a dedicated remote controlled fighter for this purpose.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Yeah... also the Borak would sue for copyright infringements.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Historically the Borak did not have H-K fighters (or turrets) (according to the playtest pack).

The megaphaser they did historically have.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Richard B. Eitzen:

Historically they did not have fighters, but in Y87 when they were conquered by the Hydrans their "Y" series ships were in service, and the YCA and YCL did have turrets.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, November 14, 2014 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Ah, yes. My apologies.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, November 15, 2014 - 08:05 pm: Edit

SPP, I am thinking of a platform that could be placed on any ship and replaces a shuttle, say. Perhaps a more versatile drogue, that might use the aforementioned remote control fighter rules? By the way, are jump racks still in the game?

Anyway, it is just a thought. I have been thinking that drones have remained pretty "dumb" in the game and could be fun to have drone rules that sorta mimic some of the advancements in smart tech we have seen over the last thirty years.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, November 15, 2014 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Jump racks that you can add to a shuttle bay are long gone.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, November 17, 2014 - 01:52 am: Edit

I actually sent SVC a set of rules that would try to create "smart drones" as part of my larger "race" proposal a few years ago (3?).

But SVC was WAY too busy to review it. Maybe someday we'll get another "design a new Empire" contest and I can submit then.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Wednesday, July 01, 2015 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Has any thought ever been given to a rules module loaded with optional drones and rules for them? This is one area of the game that is ripe for "updating" given the advances in smart weaponry we have seen in the real world. I go back and forth on this though and there are plenty of nifty drones already in the game but their guidance seems an area where more fun can be had. Autonomous drones or ones that can evade better comes to mind :-) A house rule we have used before allows a drone that enters a target hex to close-in maneuver to another shield if desired but the target gets a second chance to shoot at it with weapons in the new approach arc.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, July 03, 2015 - 08:31 pm: Edit

I have finally come to the conclusion that a "drone" in SFB is closer to a hellfire than a X47 or predator.

You get to designate the target a time of launch but after that it's going to go towards what you are "illuminating." If you try to move the target the drone/missile gets "lost" and self destructs.

A DRONE in the modern (21st Century) context is actually closer to a RC Fighter (in the SFU).

Just how I see it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 04, 2015 - 07:24 am: Edit

We may have to wait for the next X module for such improvements.

Any improvements along the lines of modern drone technology would mean major changes to the game structure for earlier historical periods.

Plus the risk of exploding Petricks brain trying to integrate said changes into the existing rules set.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Saturday, July 04, 2015 - 08:29 am: Edit

Me i would not want to see Petricks brain explode. Just saying...

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, July 05, 2015 - 05:27 am: Edit

Actually I can see RC fighters being major & common weapons systems in the X2 era.

Speed 32
12 damage points
2 p3 fa
2 one space plus 2 half space drones. (or a saboted Plasma L plus a couple Ks)

The problem with them would mirror the Stingers in the late GW (and tournament period) in that they would require GOOD timing or they get zorked while mommy is still trying to close...