That's really powerful because it creates easy mizia opportunities.

I'd tend to be against it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 01:35 am: Edit

Well, just a thought for the hay stack!

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 02:11 am: Edit

I asked about that once in Q&A. Turns out Aegis isn't resolved as mizia. If its in a single impulse, no matter which Aegis phase, it is resolved as a single DAC volley.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:13 am: Edit

I'ld be willing to have no increase in photons whatsoever if they got the ability to fire in Aegis without the size class restrictions.

I don't think it's a game breaker, just such a massive BPV increase that practically everything else would go out the window.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:14 am: Edit

Especially if X2 ships got full Aegis.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 12:12 pm: Edit

MJC: Why do you think that?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Gee...Um, first I break a shield with Photon-16s.
Then I come back a little latter with Photon 16s.
My Phasers break what ever repair was done and my Photon inflicts 16 points of damage, which is 8/9 of an 18 point mizia.
Next Aegis, step I fire a Photon-16.
Next Aegis, Step, same again.
Next Aegis step finish off with my last Photon-16.

Total enemy weapon losses ( assuming they all hit ).
32/9 Torps ( 3.55 )
64/9 Phasers ( 7.11 )
32/9 Drones ( 3.55 )

Even with JUST limited Aegis, hurling R8 pairs of Photons will seriously cut into enemy teeth.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Working on an X2-AEGIS idea too, and not "more AEGIS pulses and longer range" either (think "cooperative engagement"). Get back to you guys ASAP.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Brodie,

I'm sending you something you might want to see. Lemme know what you think

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

It will take something good to convince me we should do something other then simply having X-Aegis carry over as is. If we change too many things people will make mistakes trying to remeber the rules for each generation.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

I'm inclined to agree with Tos about X-Aegis.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 12:06 am: Edit

Got it, Mike. Gimme awhile to digest.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 01:47 am: Edit

---

Quote:

It will take something good to convince me we should do something other then simply having X-Aegis carry over as is. If we change too many things people will make mistakes trying to remember the rules for each generation.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit

This is a general use idea so I'll post it here.

Regarding T-bombs: This though came to me wile trying to answer a question from Ken Burnside in the WHY thread.

Consider building T-Bombs and NSM's like building drones. You can assemble modules together to form various sized strengths of mines. You would be limited to a certain number of modules like t-bombs are limited but you could use them separately or combined to generate larger yields.

Mine Modules: Explosion Strength = 6
Can combine up to four modules to create a single unit (2 modules = 12 warhead, 3Mmod = 18 warhead and 4Mmod = 24 warhead.)
Sizes up to 2 modules can be transported. Larger can only be dropped from a shuttle hatch or mine rack.

QUANTITIES: Should be more than typical for T-bombs but not too much. A cruiser typically gets 4 t-bombs so perhaps +50% for 6 modules (or four t-bombs)on a cruiser.

COST: I'd say 3 BPV each.

PROCEDURE: Modules are stored un-combined and must be combined during the scenario. A player may have some combinations ready depending on Weapons Status at the start of the turn.
Combining modules takes one crew action 16 impulses per module. That is a maximum rate of three modules per turn. EXAMPLE: It takes 16 impulses to combine two modules. It takes an additional 16 impulses to add a third and another 16 to add a fourth.
At WS-2 a player may start with 32 impulses of assembly. At WS-3 a player may start with 64 impulses of assembly.

It takes an equal amount of time to reverse (disassemble) the process.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Lego T-bombs?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Well, if you consider drone construction Lego-Drones then ya, sure.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit

T-bomb consturction is enough of an advantage. No need to go into on-demand construction during a scenario (ala MJC's Lego Drone Proposal).

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Now what about modules other than explosive modules? Imagine Romulan mines with cloak modules that passively detect ships by "warp signature" and proximity, or sensor modules that pass data on to the mine warfare ship, etc.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

But there is a major difference between this and MJC's proposal and that's the major limits to the numbers. Ya, you could get a 24 point mine but it would take four modules at 3BPV each and take them out of availability for varying times during the construction time. One could arue for and against the merrits of constructing larger mines. That 24 point mine will take up 2/3 of a cruisers modules and if it ends up being avoided, well there goes 12 BPV for nothing. On the other hand the modules are probably most useful as single units doing 6 damage each. That's enough to take out many TypeVII drones w/o armor.

So the flexability becomes a real tactical dicision. A good 24 point mine hit could ruin a PF flotillas day.

BTW: NO NSM's on ships and it should stay that way. To allow a larger mine to be common it has to be a smaller warhead, hence the four module maximum.

Alternatively, I could see a large base module that would only apear in base minefields and on minesweepers/layers. This module would have the electronics to be command controlled and would have a base explosive strength of 12. Add four modules to that and the total strength is 36. The Command module would cost 4 BPV.

Modules would be 1/2 priced for pre-established fields.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Loren, are you considering this a GW or X1 (timeline-wise) weapon?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

X2...

Though would become generally available after a few years.

Every thing I propose in the X-Files is X2 unless it is in a X1 specific thread or I label it as not X2.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

---

Quote:

But there is a major difference between this and MJC's proposal and that's the major limits to the numbers.

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:37 am: Edit

Except that a T-bomb doesn't fly around the board.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 01:26 am: Edit

And doesn't seek and you don't get 8 of them per rack.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 02:07 am: Edit

But can you put a chain detonator on a ship-laid T-bomb? Or only on something in a formal minefield?

If fighters get bigger, then T-bombs might also want to get bigger.