Archive through June 07, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: 2X Drone Ideas: Archive through June 07, 2003
By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Tos,

Lots of things are simple. A DF weapon that does 1000 points of damage, fires every turn for no power and always hits is simple.

But very, very unbalanced.

Retargeting drones isn't THAT unbalanced, but it still goes over my personal line for such things.

I would really like to see some reason from you or someone else to convince me otherwise. I don't intend to be an easy sell, but I'm not close-minded on this issue.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Mike, was that when you attempt to switch or when you reach the target?

There is one way I would accept target switching and that would be as a Special Guidence Module that would take 1/2 payload space. Then make them limited availability. Between Mikes suggestion and this, the concept of target switching would be fine with me. But as a general drone enhancement? I'm inclined to avoid that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit

You know, as a module there is several advantages. First balance is far simpler to deal with as you can now control the cost and availability specifically.

Next, there is a certain tactical advantage in that the enemy doesn't know what you have. It would be a genuine surprise that they wont be fully prepared for. (as a general availability drone they would always be ready)

Third, would still fit with the idea of "no new drones but new modules instead". One could keep the use limited (mostely) to X2 ships by saying this type of drone module can only be guided by ships with Special Bridge (though it doesn't use up the channel) or by ships with Scout Sensor Channels (does use a channel in drone control mode. Could guide three modules.). That would mean that X1 Scouts only could use them. GW couldn't because of the X-drone bus.

Finally, as a module you could have it lead other drones. If the enemy guesses lucky as destroys the leader drone then the rest roll on the table and if they donot go inert then they target randomly under ATG (built-into X-drones). If not in range of a qualified target (they usually would be) they go inert.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 02:27 pm: Edit

I'd want it a full space module for unlimited retargeting, half-space does 1 at most 2.

This is a big advantage, it should come at a big cost.

If you know what you can target with a drone and have the ability to retarget without restriction, you effectively can maneuver the drone like it was a ship, skirt T-bombs and weasels, back off and wait for a wave of "dumb drones" to consume drone defenses...the list goes on.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Quote:

Mike, was that when you attempt to switch or when you reach the target?



When you switch targets. Let me try an example to illustrate what I'm thinking.

A Klingon XDD fires off an advanced drone at a Kzinti XCA. The Kzinti drops a WW, and the Klingon drone targets it. The Klingon player then switches the target back to the Kzinti vessel. To do so, he has to make a roll to see if he can re-achieve a target lock. If he succeeds, the drone proceeds as normal. If not, the drone goes wild and is taken out of play. In this case, he succeeds. A few impulses later, a Kzinti XFF drops a T-Bomb in the drones path, hoping to protect the XCA. The klingon switches targets to the XFF, knowing he'll loose the drone otherwise. He now has to roll again, but with less of a chance to actually achieve a lock on. If he succeeds, the drone will chase down the XFF...if not, it's lost.

Something like that. You can see when you read it that it gives the X2 drone a hell of a lot better chance to actually hit something. There would also be reams and reams of term papers over how to use this feature, and some of those would be a bit dirty. Like, say, in the above example. Switch from the CA to the FF to avoid the T-bomb...and then switch back.

Bottom line; I'm not sure if this would work or not, but if we want to have drones that can change targets in flight, there would have to be restrictions.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 03:26 pm: Edit

...so you're talking about a "weasel-override".

The problem is the way the weasel rules work, the drone should immidiately want to target the weasel again unless the rules simply state "it doesn't do this." or gives you a roll to keep from doing it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Ya, you could switch back to the ship but if it is still under WW the drone would target the WW. You could switch targets to another ship and wait out the WW then switch back.

I would add another restriction, targets must be able to be brought into the FA arc in the next impulse or the drone goes inert. Drones can HET so the first switch can be anywhere. But on the second switch if it can't turn to bring it in the FA arc it can't be targeted. So basically, with Mikes chart you could switch once with no restrictions but they get progressively harder after that.

Using Mikes chart I think 1/2 space is fine. By the third switch it only has a 1 in 6 chance of not going inert.

Guidence Control Modules (GCM) would be indetifiable via lab or S-Bridge Function.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Loren,

Your post gave me an idea. What would be interesting if we do this is integrate retargeting with S-bridge functions.

Make it a 1/2 space module that required the drone be controlled using the S-Bridge's drone-control ability in order to be able to retarget. Neither by itself would be enough.

That would put a hard upper-limit on the number of retargetable drones a ship can put in flight.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit

I considered that (and that's what I posted regarding Scout Sensors) but I was thinking that using you S-Bridge function for that might be too hard on the user. But maybe not.

Basically the module would be restricted availability so ships wouldn't have to many of them anyway.

OK, that sounds cool. That would keep them off the littlest ships and freighter auxilaries etc. Only X1 ships with Scout Sensors could use the module otherwise. Hmm, a value for having a XSC in the area; three GCM-drones per channel.

I think this should be a Klingon only module. Kzinti might get their hands on it when the Xorks arrive.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

A GCM-drone should be able to be set on a ballistic corse to start for no penalty, aquiring a target at the owners time of choosing.

This is big and would probably the the most common use of the drone. You launch the GCM-drone and it passes the target appearing to be targeted on something else. It the aquires the ship, HETs, and approaches from behind the target. Potentially nasty.
Kinda fills the roll of the AT-Disruptor a bit, giving the Klingons that same sort of fencing trick. A bit more believable to me too.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Picture a modified Hyran ST-F with WBP. The Gatling is modified to be 360 degrees but can only fire at range zero, can only engage one target, only has a single charge that can fire the Gatling once, and is remote controlled but only by an X2 ship. We will call it a ST-D and it is only used by Kzinti, Klingon, Fed, Orion and WYN. The cost is 3 BPV each.

This particular fighter, being a rather small and limited cabaility unit, is able to fit 4 in each shuttle bay. Unfortunately it takes a minimum of 8 impulses and a turn break to prepare the ST-D for launch. Ships store a number of spare ST-D that can be moved to the shuttle bay at the rate of 1/turn provided no ST-D is launched that turn.

If this were a fighter proposal and not a drone proposal would it still be considered unbalancing?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Without speaking to the question of whether the proposal is unbalancing, a fighter proposal would always be more likely to be unbalancing because a fighter has no innate restritins on its movement.

A drone must alwasy seek its target.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Remote controled fighters have a max range of 15 from the controling ship. Fighters cost lots of BPV compaired to drones, so if your looking at 8 to 16 BPV for that drone and you can only have 12 units then OK, not unbalancing.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Quote:

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.


How about a better idea.
Type VII and VIII drones may buy Highly advanced Type III targeting computers...T modules if we record them for 1/2 a BPV and Type X & XI always had them.

The system allows three waypoints to be set just like a Type III drone but at the drone control channel point beyond next if selected in mif flight at the point of selection.

The drone can also fly towards one "drone control point" that is selected mid flight although at all times a dronme must have atleast one drone control point to fly to or else it goes inert.

Each drone control point costs 1 drone control channel for the drone ( although in a new turn Drone control channels are refreshed and my control a drone they once placed the drone control points for ).
In that way you can only get about 4 drones freely roaming on the board for your Double Drone control plus bridge as special thingy; X2 ships.


Quote:

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).


Yeap.

Still sucking up drone control channels is probably a better way of stopping the drone tsunami.


Quote:

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.


Die rolls are bad if we can use something else.
If you think the Fed getting lucky for 96 points of damage is bad...four Type VIII drones can GET LUCKY for that same amount of damage...die rolls aree bad...better to have drone control channel consumption.


Quote:

Third, would still fit with the idea of "no new drones but new modules instead". One could keep the use limited (mostely) to X2 ships by saying this type of drone module can only be guided by ships with Special Bridge (though it doesn't use up the channel) or by ships with Scout Sensor Channels (does use a channel in drone control mode. Could guide three modules.). That would mean that X1 Scouts only could use them. GW couldn't because of the X-drone bus.


And when was that concept come up with...I want new drones!...am I the only one!?!


Quote:

Finally, as a module you could have it lead other drones. If the enemy guesses lucky as destroys the leader drone then the rest roll on the table and if they donot go inert then they target randomly under ATG (built-into X-drones). If not in range of a qualified target (they usually would be) they go inert.


ATG doesn't automatically give you the MW sarm that you speak of...I don't think it should either...we already have the mutual impact rule and if you want a stunt like that, then that's goood enough for me.


Quote:

I'd want it a full space module for unlimited retargeting, half-space does 1 at most 2.

This is a big advantage, it should come at a big cost.

If you know what you can target with a drone and have the ability to retarget without restriction, you effectively can maneuver the drone like it was a ship, skirt T-bombs and weasels, back off and wait for a wave of "dumb drones" to consume drone defenses...the list goes on.


ATG and Type II don't loose out on anything ( module spaces wise ) so I don't think highly advanced drones should have to give up module spaces...just make each drone control point cost a drone control channel per drone.


Quote:

...so you're talking about a "weasel-override".

The problem is the way the weasel rules work, the drone should immidiately want to target the weasel again unless the rules simply state "it doesn't do this." or gives you a roll to keep from doing it.


Yeah...you'ld need to send out 2 drones and have the Type VII amoungst them retain the weasel as the target...boom...4 impulses...then you're free to target the ship.

Look by having the drone control points as being hexes and hexes only, once you say before I reach the next drone control point I'll target a ship and switch that drone to attacking the ship, then you retain the ability to walk around T-bomb fences and retain the ability to create something like a drone tsunami but shall still get caught by the weasel if the enemy drops the WW and the drones have been told to attack the ship...peeling off one drone to pop the weasel is a legitimate tactic if you have all you drones following drone control channels.


Quote:

Remote controled fighters have a max range of 15 from the controling ship. Fighters cost lots of BPV compaired to drones, so if your looking at 8 to 16 BPV for that drone and you can only have 12 units then OK, not unbalancing.


A drone can only be less than 36 hexes from it launch ship and the launch ship can only be less than 36 hexes from the target...that's a similar restriction.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Bearing in mind my caveat, posted 06 June 03 at 04:17 pm, I'd like to see two simple concepts for X2 drones: (1) standard-sized drones (SC7) that are fast and ripple fire from a VLS-style launcher; (2) a limited number of "uber" (SC6) drones.

The SC7 drones would be the kind we're used to, but faster and can be launched in any variety desired (like a VLS). Call the launcher a V-rack for lack of a better name. The usual suspects would include the standard (explosive) drone, the phaser drone, the EW drone, and the plasma drone (I think Loren mentioned it) that reminds me of the ASROC.

Also I'd like to see an "interceptor" drone that's very fast (somewhere around speed 64), relatively short ranged, and limited to targeting SC6-7 units. This would be similar to the ADD but the drone would be an actual seeker vice DF weapon and has a greater chance of hitting than ADD. Fighters would also be able to carry the Interceptor.

Then there's the SC6 "uber" drone. The contemporary analog is ASM missiles, such as Harpoon, Exocet, etc. These monsters would have the EW, the 360-degree shield, the highly powerful warhead, etc. They are not mounted in the standard drone rack (or V-rack) but are mounted in special links like a mech link. They can only be reloaded in between scenarios. They can take a beating before they're destroyed, and they're a little slower than SC7 drones, but if you're hit by one, you're out of the fight or seriously hurt.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 07:02 pm: Edit

While reading that I had an idea come to me. How about a module that, like todays cluster bombs, when reaching the target small war heads burst out in a wide pattern and explode. The result is that the facing shield and the two ajacent shields take 1d6 of damage each. It is a 1.5 space module so the type VII can carry one and the Type VIII can carry two. Unshielded units (drones and shuttles etc.) take 3d6 damage.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Is that a new Type VIII or an old type VIII?


I wonder which would be better attatched to the mech-link, a Deathrider or an Uber drone?


I don't like the Clusterbomb, three shield slit idea, it's not like there's any such indication that the exploding and fragment throwing ADD hit's several shields.
Perhaps it would be better, to say, 1D6 damage per half space module, but like and anti-drone and it's massive & random array of small sub munitions the Cluster warhead ignored the effects of generated ECM!?!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 09:33 pm: Edit

I advocate using X1 drones and comming up with new modules for X2.

Just prior to impact the warhead expells bomblets in a wide pattern towards the target. Then they expoded. The damage maximum is the same as a standard Type VII drone (3 x 1/2 spc. 6 point explosive modules = 18). The difference is that it hits three shields. The cost is that you get random damage. The advantage is that you hit three shields one of which might be down.
This could be a general availability item for X2 or at worst limited.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 09:50 pm: Edit

I wouldn't like to give every Drone user the ISCs ability, better to let drones lay T-bombs and that's outlawed...think of the Poor Gorns...actually that have a simliar ability...think of the poor Lyrans...actually they have a tactic that can do that....Ah think of the poor tholians who won't be getting splash attack.


Il'd rather say;" Cluster grants Random Damage but +5 Free ECCM" than "Cluster grants splash effect", it'll stop every drone using race ( which is a lot of races ) suddednly gaining ISC flavour.


BTW, A Type VII drone with 3D6 on the #2, #1 & #6 would be on average 31.5 points in total not 18 and a maximum of 54!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 12:52 am: Edit

MJC: Please re-read this: Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 07:02 pm:

I'm pretty clear it 1d6 for each of the three shields. Un-shielded units just take 3d6. The drone never does more than 18.

I don't see the ISC connection. This is a seeking weapon not DF. You can shoot it down or run away. I will likely do less damage than standard drones and it is not spash damage at all. Indeed, it is entirely unique.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 03:49 am: Edit

It damages three shields, if that's not giving every drone user in the known galaxy Psuedo-PPD I don't know what is.


Quote:

I'm pretty clear it's 1d6 for each of the three shields. Un-shielded units just take 3d6. The drone never does more than 18.

I don't see the ISC connection. This is a seeking weapon not DF. You can shoot it down or run away. It will likely do less damage than standard drones and it is not spash damage at all. Indeed, it is entirely unique.




I'ld rather say that the cluster submunitions inflict one point of damage each and spray out the instant the drone reaches R1 ( even if the target ship is to move to hold or open the range ) meaning that each phaser shot destroys one submunition reducing the damage inflicted by 1 point per phaser shot, than to say it strikes three seperate shields.

There are enough PICK-A-SHEILD Races already.
The ISC, the GORN, the Romulans, the Hydrans and to a lesser extent the Lyrans.
Let's not give such an ability to every drone using race aswell.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Loren, how about this? Hopefully this isn't too off-topic. Given that there is worry about the efficacy of "attrition" units in X2, maybe this weapon should be created as a fighter weapon pod (probably the Hydrans or Kzinti made it first). There would be some limits, namely the fighter has to get in close to use it (the risk), but the closer they get the better the chances of causing damage (the payoff). If you have fast fighters for X2 this could be feasible. The only problem is that in the end this weapon seems more like a DF weapon than a seeker.

This weapon I list separately from the Interceptor Drone mentioned above.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 02:45 pm: Edit

MJC, a Deathrider is a SC5 unit where an "Uber" Drone is a SC6 unit, in fact the smallest possible SC6 unit. SC6 drones are the result of races that like the punch of a suicide shuttle/deathrider but didn't want to waste the resources of using an actual shuttle or PF. Also the "mech links" used for SC6 drones don't actually have tractors. I used the term to give an idea of the concept. For example, an X2-CC would have six SC6 drones and the SSD would show six boxes for them (e.g. four in main hull and two in aft hull for Feds).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 03:21 pm: Edit

RBN: Are you saying that instead of a drone munition my proposal be a fighter pod? If so, that would be a Cluster Bomb for ships. I could only see it as a R0 weapon which would be really hard for fighters to gain. A drone bus is far more expendable (it too has to gain R0, like any other drone with an explosive warhead). However, it is not implausable.

Your Uber drone sounds a lot tougher than a Type H drone and those, per SVC, will never be allowed on ships.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Just to play Devils advocate. And toss the cat among the canaries.

Tachyon and Scud Missiles

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