John T: First, let me say, what an interesting battle that would be. A Klingon armed SCF Carrier Group vs. a Fed. XP-38 Carrier group all in the X2 era.

I would suggest one change. The Klingons, have used both fighters and PFs, might prefer to mount these units on external mech-links. Say, two per link. Launch one then the other two impulses later. Currently your launch rate is very slow and I would think that since these are RC non-crewed units there would be no problem to mounting them externally.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Loren,

A Carrier might have 6 SCF racks per squadron. Not quite the launch rate you get with launch tubes or even a shuttle bay but if timed over a turn break the entire squadron is launched in 9 impulses, no more than 32 impulses and you get 6 per shot.

Common DF armament 3x P-3, sometimes 2x P-6. DFR 3. Base speed 20, packs to 30.

I'm somewhat up in the air about rack reloads. 3 seems excessive and even 2 could be.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Reloads???

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Sure.

These are throwaways, remember.

The P-38 is quality, the SCF is quantity.

Rules can be put in place that keep the SCF in check, such as not allowing a ship to control more than 2 unless its a carrier or carrier escort.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 11:03 pm: Edit

I didn't intend that more than a squadron be fielded at any one time but that a squadron could be renewed from reloads.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 02:27 am: Edit

Hmmm. So my squadron takes 18 points to kill each and yours takes 8 points but two or three times. I can see it. Might should lighten up the weapons loads then. They're pretty heavy, IIRC.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 04:09 pm: Edit

I was thinking possibly the same thing for mine, wondering if 8 spaces of drones was too much.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 08:41 pm: Edit

MJC: "Quite frankly one wonders why you are spending 2 points to hold shuttles that are undoubtedly both SPs. 2MRX ( the Admin of X2 ) with 8 Type VII drones each...what a rush!"

So, is an MRX the Admin shuttle of X2? Seems reasonable to me. What are its stats?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 09:14 pm: Edit

I don't think SVC will go for every ship running around with MRS for admins.
In the archive above I posted a proposal for the X-Admin. Jan. 31, 2:21 PM.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 10:20 am: Edit

I could see an Xadmin and an Xmrs.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Oh, ya, both right. Sure I see that too but not as a standard replacement for the Admin. I think that was the intention of the post above. That would be too much, IMHO.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Yeah, I was just being artistic with the words.

I was implying that it's likely that the X2 cruisers will have some kind of X Admin shuttle, that's as tough, fast and can carry as many spaces of drones in a scatter pack as an MRS but which probably doesn't have the EW capasity.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 10:14 am: Edit

I had some random thoughts on this subject. At first I thought, should X2 get fighter bays like HDW? I suspect the answer is no. Then I thought Gee wouldn't it be nice if X ships got XMRS as standard equipment. Then I thought not everyone wishes to deal with the added complexity of an MRS as standard equipment. Now I'm thinking we could lift the restrictions on buying XMRS for X2 so that they can buy as many as they please with CO points. This gives them something to spend their copious CO points on while not forcing the added complexity if the MRS on all players ready or not.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 11:36 am: Edit

I don't see a problem with automatically including an MRS. If players don't want to bother with the added abilities, they can just use it as a (slightly) more survivable shuttle.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 12:10 pm: Edit

I think X2 Frigates should automatically get Fighter rearming capasities.
That is to say there may be Frigates of varrious varriants but the basic frigate shall be identical to the escort bersion of it'self and all X2 frigates can qualify and as a carrier escort if the owning player chooses so.

This is really an out working of the ideal of X2 ships...increadibly flexible ships able to make longer mission durations.


As to MRX I think the limits could be increased but not cart blanch as the X Admin will probably be awefully good and the EW effects of MRS could piss a few people off...that is those that don't normally play with MRS shuttles.
MRX should probably get the EW capasity of a SWAC.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 01:23 pm: Edit

I'd rather make the XMRS an optional component you can buy.

The reason is that people who do not want to use them simply agree that they aren't going to buy them and there is no BPV adjustment to the ships they're using. Twin XMRS's should suffice.

I just wrote and erased an agreement with X-ships having fighter bays. Writing it told me it was a bad idea. X-ships will take those lcopious amount of CO's and turn themselves into casual carriers. I'm not sure I want to go there.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 02:49 pm: Edit

MRX, IMO, should be a limited option for all X2 ships. I would limit it to two maximum and replace no more than half your shuttles. So a ship with four or more shuttles could buy 2 but ships with three or two could only buy 1 and ships with one shuttle would not be eligable for an MRX.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Who wants to create Xork-era fighters that can recharge their heavy weapon in flight? Maybe at a speed reduction to make them pay for it.

By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 05:50 pm: Edit

One concept I've rather liked for X2 fighters is something akin to the Hivers -- that is, what other people call Hiver fighters and what the hivers call frigates. These are GW tech )presumably) so it might not be too outre to think that X2 allows some of what Hiver fighters are capable of.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 08:52 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Who wants to create Xork-era fighters that can recharge their heavy weapon in flight? Maybe at a speed reduction to make them pay for it.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit

For those without J2, here's the nuts and bolts of "Remote controlled fighters" - Picture a room on the starship with 12 PCs each with a copy of "Starfleet Command - Fighter Edition" running.

The pilot is on his computer on board the carrier, and uses 1/3 of a seeking weapons channel to control his fighter.

If an ace pilot gets his fighter shot down or crippled, he can run over to a novice pilot's terminal and change seats.

There's other details, advantages, and disadvantages, but that's the basics.

------------

Why do I mention it?
Lyran X2 Remote-control PFs

It would work the same way as a regular PF, except the crew is on board the tender, not the PF.

Each RcPF uses a full seeking-weapons channel. Lyran ships, which do not fire drones, are limited to 3 channels, and therefore a half-flotilla.

Only regular PFs can be controlled. Leader and Scout PFs cannot.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 05:13 pm: Edit

My answer to that is game wise it sounds cool but since PF are small ships there is more to flying them than piloting them. A fighter, being so small, is built in such a way that it requires no maintainence during opperation other that what a single person can handle and that is easilly replaced with a machine.

A PF is much more. Adding remote controls to do all the things needed for a small ship to opperate is too much, IMO.

Now, that covers exsisting PFs and a conversion to remote control.

However, I could see a specialty design built from the yard to be a remote controled unit. This unit could not be crewed and would have some bennifits and less hull. Might have armor. Probably would be smaller. Such as the size of an Interceptor with the offensive capabilities of a full PF (with X2 weapons).

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 06:02 pm: Edit

From the other thread: I'm not suggesting RP-PFs, I'm suggesting AI-PFs. You still need a SFB player to control the AI-PF, but the concept is a "fire-and-forget" PF that is given an attack profile and target list. Maybe that's splitting hairs but I think the game mechanics of it would reflect differently in the end.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Too easy for a player to change "directions" during a battle. Besides, when a player normally sees one of his PFs on the board, he already assumes he has total control over its movements.

I would rather keep this feature and note that it's taking up a seeking weapons channel, rather than giving the PF a pre-programmed set of orders. That might work in FOG, but not in face-to-face.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Actually, since there are Death Rider PF, you probably could run one by remote.

Maybe need a small team rather than a single individual, one each to keep up with each major area of the ship.