Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through August 17, 2003	25		08/17 02:01pm
	Archive through December 22, 2004	25		12/22 09:07pm
	Archive through May 25, 2006	25		05/26 07:41am

I've gotta agree.
Any ANY box is more useful on a frigate than a base.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Frigate. Hmmm. I've always despised the any-box concept, but if left a Frigate only device I can see some potential. A Frigate with an Any box could reduce or eliminate redundant systems. Instead of two transporters, two labs, two tractors a Frigate could be equipped with one transporter, one tractor and one Any box. A net savings of three boxes. As you add capabilities, like say in a Cruiser, the Any box would be replaced with actual redundancy, which would be cheaper to produce and more survivable in combat.

I just reread the first archive of this proposal. At that point there was talk of creating an Emitter box. The EMIT could tractor, transport or beam power from one EMIT box to another EMIT box on another ship. We could tie the EMIT into the sensors and potentially gain some Lab like seeking weapon information. This isn’t quite as Holo-deck as the ‘Any’ box, which IMO is a good thing. We can probably come up with some other things to Emit. Think of it like the capabilities of the Sensor Dish, which constantly sends out tacion particles and the like. As an interesting twist we could give the EMIT box an FA firing arc so as to distinguish it from the more traditional systems. Scouts would be allowed to have one EMIT box for each special sensor and would always have at least one EMIT box pointing in each direction for 360 coverage.

I think if we work on it we can come up with something interesting.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Maybe the EMIT box and the ANY box could be tied.
The EMIT is an ANY box that does work externally of the ship ( tractor transporter etc ) and the ANY does internal work ( cargo, lab, Aux Control, APR etc).
Personnally I don't like the ANY box either except that it's better than drogues for everyone.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Let me be clear that I'm not overjoyed at the Any Box concept either. It is actually a Steve Cole concept that he has yet to define (See Campaign Designers Handbook).

I posted those rule only in case the Any Box must be part of the SFU. It would be tolerable that way. The rules I present require that you have to be careful and think how you will use them and you don't get to use them for free. They are vulnerable while you use them (and to H&R of course) and not all your Any Boxes can be any thing.

Any Boxes are specialized in my rule set. The tactical ones have a hard point on the exterior of the hull that allows them to be weapons or similar devices. The Sciences are located more inside the hull, although they have access to the ships sensor and scanners arrays and can utilize parts of a damaged system. Being replicated systems (or semi-holo) they aren't durable and can only be used once.

The third system is a covertable bay that is easilly customizable using the ships own shops (but takes days). The power system options are very short term systems and last only for a short time (a single mission). Once damaged there is no repairing them.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 07:41 am: Edit

I hate the any box. Hate it, hate it, hate it. I don't mind a bit of NWO or something, but the idea of a box that can be anything you want just sticks in my craw.

That being said, SVC did mention it in his essay on X2 in P6, and has said he still wants to follow what he wrote there, so it may be we're going to get an any box whether we like it or not.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 11:01 am: Edit

...Then we had best propose an ANY box we can live with

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 11:04 am: Edit

Well, I proposed one I could live with.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 12:15 am: Edit

Loren, I can see some reason behind the need for a "Any Box"... but from a "Purist" point of view I dislike the idea in SFB's.

for my $0.02 worth, I'd rather have it like a glorified "Jack of all trades/Master of none" capacity.

let it have ONE ability of normal capacity, but for each iteration removed from its primary role, it gets progressively worse performance.

How that works out I dont know... I just think the "ANY BOX" should have a penalty of some sort compared to purpose built systems.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 01:01 am: Edit

Well, again I'm not a proponant of the system BUT if there has to be one this is a proposal for that.

They way I have it presented the best way to use it is 1) As a weapon for your initial strike then 2) shut it down until you are taking damage. 3) Then bring it back up as the componant you need the most.

The Sciences Any Box is best left null until you start taking damage as well.

The Utility Any Box has to be set before the scenario and cost BPV in some cases. Between the three types you have Any Box.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 07:37 pm: Edit

I was thinking about this last night . . .

1) Engineering Control (ENG on the SSD). Counts as a control system for purposes of ship control. Can be used as a Lab or Repair box (but only one of those functions) on any turn in a scenario, but does not qualify the ship as a repair ship for campaign repair purposes.

So, taking a Fed FFX, Kzinti FKX, or Tholian PCX, a switch of the two LAB to ENG would allow elimination of the EMER and AUX boxes while leaving the same number of control boxes in place and adding G17 rule repair functionality. On a Romulan SEX, you could eliminate the EMER and effectively add a control space. On the Orion LX and Wyn ACX, the second control space is already effectively a double-duty lab, so all that's added is G17 during-scenario repairs.

(I would note that this is a fairly minor upgrade to the established capabilities of control spaces, which already can double-function as labs in certain circumstances. This basically makes that full time in ENG spcaes and enhances the repair capability somewhat. If you've done all your D9.7 CDR and aren't able or desperate enough to do EDR, the G17 repairs might help a bit.)

2) Transmitter-Receiver Array (TRA on the SSD). Can, on a turn, perform the functions of a transporter, a tractor, or limited scout sensor functions (but only one of the three). Scout sensor funtions are limited to identifying seeking weapons and shuttles (G24.25), detecting mines (G24.26), gathering information (G24.27), and tactical intelligence (G24.29).

On the Fed FFX, Rom SEX, and Orion LX, replacing both TRAN boxes with TRA allows elimination of the TRAC boxes without reducing TRAC-function availability and adds G24.25-27 & G24.29 functionality. On the PCX and ACX, one TRAN/TRAC is eliminated when the other becomes a TRA, freeing a box. On the FKX, the three TRAN becoming TRA would allow elimination of the sole TRAC and triple the number of tractor-capable boxes.

(This is a somewhat bigger consolidation of functions, but is less than overwhelming.)

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Steven,

In my version of Fed Police Cutter deck plans, the Emergency Bridge doubles as Main Engineering Control.

I really should make time to work on that project. {sigh}


Garth L. Getgen

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 10:05 pm: Edit

I'm not sure that replacing all the LABs with ENG is a good idea...you might encounter drones.
Also some frigates can become uncontrolled so opting for the chance to replace control boxes with something that can spend turns not being control spaces and indeed being hit on things more central to the DAC; will raise the rate of frigates being rendered uncontrolled.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 01:28 am: Edit

MJC --

If you encounter drones, you use ENG as a LAB to identify them, just like you would use a LAB.

As far as control issues, the idea is that an ENG can be used as a lab or repair box without interfering with its control ability, much like G4.31 says that using a control space as a lab "does not interfere with its ability to function as a control system". So it's not so much a box that switches between functions as is an advanced kind of Control box that can carry out lab functions routinely instead of only under emergency circumstances. The G17.0 functionality effectively becomes a sort of fifth lab function, joining scientific research, identification of seeking weapons, EDR, and tac intel.

As far as the DAC, I figure vigorous debate and playtesting would decide what sort of hit it is. "Hit on Aux Con or Emer Bridge" makes sense as long as you don't have them mass-replacing labs on larger ships; all my examples were MC 1/3 ships.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 10:45 pm: Edit

A comment Alan made in the BPV topic made me think of an idea. What if X2 ships were built during the early Trade Wars with NWO to suplement the multi-mission mode, then the Trade Wars migrated from warm to hot and after a certain date (I'm thinking pre-Xork) these NWO were converted to OPT/APR* boxes.