After a quick check of the rules (FD10.6), "limited" is more limiting than "Restricted", so...

198: Limited
203: Restricted
205: General

By Orman J. Hoffman II (Ojh2) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit

IMO if XP refits start in Y188 as Tos has sugested, then the X-drones would need to be available as limited from the start of the refits.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Orman: I said that very same thing here or in one of these threads.

Anyway, ya, XP should have the ability to handle X-Drones and it would make much sense to not give them any.

And I really wouldn't want to see more than one XP refit. That is, adding X-Drone ability sometime after the original XP refit.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:10 am: Edit

makes no nevermind to me. I'm not attached to those years. I posted a 188-limited scheme to start with.

We can just as easily say

Y188: Limited
Y199: Restricted
Y205: General

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:14 am: Edit

I like that better. Can I get get a Y195: Restricted out of ya?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit

We can make a deal. What's your offer?

How 'bout 197? Makes Limited and Restricted last about the same length of time.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Question: (Related to my recent posting in the X-Drone thread)

Has SVC ever said definitively - yes or no - whether fighters (and perhaps PFs) will ever get the capability to use X-drones? Or is this still undecided?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit

He has not said definitively.

My strategy is to re-engineer the VII drone to be the same physical dimensions as the type-I drone. This allows it to be launched from any unit with that has the necessary software to control an X-drone. The VIII drone would either take up two spaces in a non-X rack or would simply not fit.

I place the BPV cost of a IF drone at 1 and the cost of a VII drone at 2. That will make people think twice before taking them.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Dimensions of a type-I drone could easily have been a design requirement for the VII.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Y196 1/2...

No?

OK Y197.........for now.


SVC has laid no decisions and wont until after GAMMA.

My solution, under consideration, is an X-Tech. Mega Pack. This would allow carriage of X-Drones and might provide some shielding. It may be that the fighter can only mount the X-Drones on the Megax Pax and the rest have to be regular drones or the situation might be that it simply provides the special electronics to launch and control X-Drones.

The Megax Pax provides a work around for the rule that there were no X-Fighters other than the Stinger-X.

I like the first situation where the X-Drones are the added drones. Fighters in this era need to be a lot tougher and wont survive long but the megax Pax give them a fighting chance and a new lease on life. Restricting the X-Drones to only the Megax Pax reduces the number of X-Drones on the field (which I think most people will as a good thing).


BTW, Regarding XP Drone availability: I think the X-Drone percentages should be calculated separately from other Special drones. That is, you use your total spaces of drones each time when A) Calculating Special Warheads and B) Calculating X-Drone numbers.

XP ships should have reasonable access to X-Drones and this shouldn't limit their access to say Spearfish Drones (X or not).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Loren,

I like the idea of a megapack-X.

If we combine in Tos' idea of VII/I drone interchangability, the megapack really just needs to house the electornics necessary to use X-drones.

On the subject of X-drone frames, I don't think any breaks are needed. Any non-Klingon who put together a IIIECM drone has felt the pinch. I think it serves as a useful limit on the deployment on X-drones on fighters. Especially when those drones could prove overwhelming en masse.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Right, there are two proposals here. Which one depends on the shape of the X-Drone.

And that has a VERY important implication on XP.

If X-Drones are the same size and shape and the standard types then XP will not need a Rack up grade but just an electronics up grade.

If that is the case the there is a problem in that why couldn't EVERY ship recieve the ability to control X-Drones?

This leads to: How many X-Drones do we want to see on the map? Availability can be curcomvented a bit by having more ships or fighters etc.

X-Drones ARE more effective than standard types. To many could have implications yet unseen. Not saying it can't work, but the subject deserves a causious eye, IMO.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Tos' actual idea was "close but no cigar".

The racks wouldn't need replacement but some retooling (as well as the electronics) to run X-drones.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Suggestion to limit X-drones on fighters:

A mega-pack provides rails for two Type-I drones. A mega-X-pack allows Type-VII drones in those two positions but all the other drones remain non-X.

Rationale:

The drone-using races already outclass the plasma races and the Tholians as far as fighters go. What conceivable mega-X-pack could the Romulans, Gorns, ISC, or Tholians get for their fighters that would remotely balance a Klingon Z-YC-MXP with 8 X-drones? (To say nothing of an F-14D, F-15D, or F-111 with mega-X-pack and maXimized drone loadout.) Actually, one possible answer would be to allow the plasma races/Tholians an XP upgrade to their PFs, but not allow it to the drone-users. But depending on what that upgrade actually looks like, it could run the gamut from being relatively unimportant to swinging things hopelessly the other way. This could be very hard to balance. I think the easiest way to avoid headaches downstream is to limit the ability of fighters to use X-drones even with mega-x-packs.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Alan, I can see that. Question, if a mega-pack is +50%, how much does a mega-X-pack cost assuming all other aspects remained the same.

Assume for your analysis that the VII drone cost 2 BPV each.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit

"What conceivable mega-X-pack could the Romulans, Gorns, ISC, or Tholians get for their fighters that would remotely balance a Klingon Z-YC-MXP with 8 X-drones?"

Converting Plasma-F carrying plasma fighters to Plasma-L carrying plasma fighters would seem quite the enhancement. Too radical?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 04:12 pm: Edit

How bout allowing a mega-X-pack fighter to launch 2 torps per turn?

A f-torp fighter would get 1x F (or L) and 1xD.

that might be too gaod.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Tos:

A Plasma-L on a fighter would indeed be powerful. But note that plasma-race fighter squadrons are generally half-and-half squadrons with 6 fighters carrying an F-torp and 6 carrying D-torps (disregarding the EW-fighter for this discussion). Thus your proposed fix would upgrade a total of 5 or 6 (depending on which fighter the EW fighter actually replaces) torpedoes in the whole squadron. No plasma fighter (except the heavy fighters) carries more than one F-torp to begin with. And that still leaves the question of the Tholians.

Regarding the BPV issue, an entire squadron of fighters with mega-X-packs and all Type-VII drones would indeed be very expensive. But there's also the issue of (to borrow an F&E term) density.

My favorite way to play SFB is as part of an ongoing campaign (though sadly it's been a while since I've had the time) where the battles are generated by strategic fleet movements. One reason I like this is that it causes some very odd match-ups that you would never see in "you buy 1000 BPV of Klingons, I buy 1000 BPV of Feds, Y178, floating map, no time limit" sort of game. Some of these battles (in a campaign) will be very one-sided, but the strategic situation forces you to fight them anyway. Now let's say that under the campaign economy and fleet organization rules, you can put together a maximum fleet of 2500 points, but the strongest fleet I can possibly build is 2300 points. Not really a problem. I can come close to matching you in that battle, and I presumably have an advantage somewhere else. But at some point, depending heavily on the campaign-specific economic, political, strategic, etc. rules a gross mismatch in maximum fleet strength will become a problem. If you can put together a fleet that can swat the most powerful fleet I can build out of space without working up a sweat, this tends to break the campaign. The problem is particularly acute during things like Starbase or Major Planet assaults, which are the sorts of battles on which the overall campaign is likely to hinge. Even if we possess the same overall resources initially, you can win the decisive battles while losing the secondary battles, due to your great superiority in maximum combat density. In the long run, of course, you win the campaign this way.

That's why I think setting a high BPV for fighters with X-drones is only a partial solution. Depending on other factors, it may still break the campaign. (Obviously, the preceding analysis is heavily dependent on the specific campaign rules, and isn't really relevant to people who don't play SFB campaigns.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Just to clarify - I'm NOT categorically opposed to X-drones on advanced fighters. I'ld just like to see it limited to the two rails on the mega-X-pack.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

If a mega-pack is +50%, how much does a mega-X-pack allowing a maximum of 2xVII drones cost assuming all other aspects remained the same.

Assume for your analysis that the VII drone cost 2 BPV each.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Starting with an existing megapack, the price includes Type IS drones on its 2 rails.

Each VII drone is an extra point above the IS, so the price of a megapack-X would be +50% +2 more.

Actually, according to X1, a VII drone costs 3 points: 1.5 for the frame + 1.5 for the explosive modules.

So +50% +4.

or if you want to be nasty, (BPV+4)*1.5

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Alan: I guess you haven't read the archives of recent?

I have already Proposed, Submitted, and debated that exact thing.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Loren:

Actually, I have read them, but sometimes things like that get lost in the shear volume of proposals and counter-proposals. Sorry, I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

I just sounded weird the way you put it...

Proposals can be precious to us SFB'ers since if used they get our names in print. Here in the X-Files a lot of stuff is group developed and often can't be claimed and that's fine but when someone developes a whole complete idea...well, I'm sure you get it.

BTW: I think the Ph-5 is a perfect example of a group effort. One all involved should be proud of.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 01:41 am: Edit

PFs were never worth investing X-tech on as they got destroyed too quickly to have a positive return on investment. What if we gave PFs an X-Bat as the only XP upgrade?