Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through September 10, 2004	25		09/10 08:48pm

One additional game balance problem with this system is cumulative Fleet Drone Channel limits.

Suppose you have a 16 ship battle fleet, (assume a Command Rate 10 flagship DN type) 10ships in the battle line (assume no carrier battle group or other battle group) a scout (in the 'free scout' position, and a 3 drone ship bombardment group and no admiral or command points being used.

Further stipulate that each ship has double drone control channels (ie each ship controls 12 drones each), and the scout devotes 1 special sensor to control 6 addition drones. also assume no ballistic targeting, or targets within ATG range (typically 8 hexes). that totals 186 drones, more if fighters, additional ships, or bases are present.

That is more than half of a drone bombardment ships capacity launched in a single impulse.

please note that Matt Shaw in his 10:59am post included this line:I'm not sure about reloading in a scenario, maybe reloaded a half the rate of a normal drone rack. As a primarily Kzinti player I would side with reloading, but in terms of balance probably not.

If the V rack could be reloaded at the rate suggested by Matt, that means a fleet of ships equipped with just 2 V racks each, would be able to launch a 186 drone wave about every 2nd turn (presumes firing on impulse #1 of turn 1, and fring again on impulse#2 on turn 3 impulse #3 on turn 5 etc...)

Talk about a "Time on Target" bombardment, it'll be like the artillery barrages from WW1!

I like new ideas, but In this case I suspect it might be too much "over the top"... the launch rate of 6 drones per launcher in one impulse is very powerful.

By Matt Shaw (Carne68) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 02:03 am: Edit

Maybe I should clarify one thing,

I sort of envision this as an X1 (limited) or X2 system. I would not want to see it in widespread use in the GW period. I would immagine that an X2 Kzinti cruiser might have 4-6 V racks. This is why I don't have a problem with the rack not being reloadable during a scenario. If it could be reloaded even at half rate it is still too powerful.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 10:06 am: Edit

Have you guys though about frax missile racks? They allow you to launch all of their drones very quickly, at a rate rivalling a VLS. In fact, I've always though of the Frax missile rack as a VLS.

While a real VLS has a lot of cells, it cannot fire all of its missiles simultaneously. There are delays (admittedly pretty small) between shots.

And a real VLS is incredibly difficult to reload unles youe are at a pier. Just like those Frax missile racks again. I've been through it a few times - loading out a DDGs VLS can take a couple of days. Moving a single VLS module at sea is royal pain in the &*$%

By benjamin sun (Ben2207) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

Jeremy Gray,

1. I thought the Frax were a "Simulator race". Matt's proposal would seem to indicate for all races
2. I'm interested to know what the in-practice effective firing rate of the VLS is in real life. I don't imagine that the U.S Navy has ever had to fire the entire magazine from a Arleigh Burke or Bunker Hill class ship. It's just too expensive to test.
3. It's interesting to note that the U.S Navy has decided that reloading at sea is impractical and has started removing the crane from the Mark 41 VLS to add "Quad Packs" of ESSMs.

Another interesting point to consider? The real Aegis system, according to Norman Polmar's Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Navy 14th edit shows that the Ticonderoga class cruiser in real life can control about 22 SM-2 missiles in the air at any given time. That's about 1/6 the total magazine that the ship carries. Now consider a Kzinti X1 ship with double drone control standard and a launch rate of between 6-8 VIII drones a turn. This effectively fires 1/6 the rack (not including reloads) a turn already. This proposal effectively doubles the Kzinti launch rate for no cost in power, no cost in spaces, no cost in penalties.

The Kzinti X1 ships aren't broken. In fact I would argue that their BCX is better than the Klingon DX and Fed CX ships because while they have 2 fewer disruptors compared to the DX and 1 less PH-1, their ships has 4 extra X drone racks.

I'm just curious as to what you think is so broken about the BCX, CCX, CMX, FKX, and SFX that needs this weapon to keep it competitive?

By Matt Shaw (Carne68) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit

Who said anything about "competitive?" I am campaigning for DOMINANT.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Matt, the problem with "Dominant" is that nobody else will play against it.

I mean, heck, if you want Dominant, you take a Gorn BB engine, sell it to the Orions.

The Orions now have a 32 warp box single engine to put on a heavy cruiser that can double its output nearly indefinitely.

Or just sell the Tholians plasma technology to go with their webcasters.

This is a point where "what's simulatively possible is not good for the game", and "good for the game" wins.

Plus, as Jeremy Gray and I have pointed out, the VLS cells already exist in the game with the Frax subs.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit

The reason people are citing the Frax (a "simulator" race) is to show that a rule similar to what you want already exists.

I like the idea of a fast-firing drone rack being a Kzinti X2 item, though. It would fit with the Fed Shotgun Photon, the Rom Hyperspeed Plasma, and the Klingon Megaphaser Frigates.

By Jeremy Gray (Gray) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Benjamin, I could tell you about the real VLS launch rate, but then I'd have to kill you.

Seriously, the largest salvos fired in anger by VLS ships tend to be Tomahawks, which are not really linked to the Aegis system at all.

Any who, I agree with Ken that any system that is "dominating" will also probably be "game balance breaking" and would not be good for the game.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 06:55 pm: Edit

Michael,

I posted an idea like what you want.

My idea was a Kzinti specific item I called the Drone Array.

In brief: If you have a set of, say 6 racks in the array, there would be 6 launchers who could draw drones from *any* of the 6 actual racks.

Since it's X2, I think I made the racks in the array 6-space racks. The array's launcher can completely drain one particular rack of drones, let it reload on the following turn while the launchers move on to other racks.

It also has a mild C-rack function where the laucher can fire again after either 16 or 20 impulses.

It doesn't do ADDs or 1/2 space drones.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Vorlonagent: Your drone array sounds like a type-D rack with ROF12 and six magazines. Am I understanding correctly?

That's actually a very interesting X2 Kzinti idea. It doesn't sound like it would horribly break anything -- it's basically 6xDRN-Cx but able to reload without going offline.

But it's definitely X2 level...

The other stuff in this thread sounds like SSJ stuff only.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 08:25 pm: Edit

It's a little slower than a C-rack, recycling every 16-20 impulses instead of 12.

Thus the ROF isn't 12, more like 36/2 turns, especially if you adopt the 20 impulse recycle time.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Vorlonagent: Yikes. I wasn't looking closely at the 16/20 implulse thing. With 16 impulses, you could match C rack rates, but only if you fired exactly every 16 impulses. That is, BTW, a ROF of 12 per turn (6 per 16 impulses == 12 per 32 impulses).

The 20-impulse version would be just weird from a game-flow perspective, as you would be firing your second shot progressively later in the turn, until you missed it completely. It would work out to 6/20*32 = ROF 9.6 averaged over several turns.

*thinking...*

It occurs to me that another interesting idea might be a D-rack type with four four-round mags. It can fire 8 times per turn (from any magazine each time), but not within 4 impulses. A magazine can be taken off-line for reloading like a normal drone rack.

Compared with 4xDRN-C: more limited firing rate, as 8 shots must be spread out over turn -- but never has to take a reloading turn. Can sustain fire until drone reloads/storage are exhausted.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Pardon.

18/2 turns. But you figured that out. A ROF of 36 would be WAY too much.

Your idea's interesting in that it's really hard to build up a drone wave.

Also to get full use of the racks firing rate you have to pretty much be launching continually as the recycle time presents itself.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit

No problem -- I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page

The thing I suggested is the kind of thing I like -- it's not a `killer app' but something that forces different tactics, a subtly different way of employing something that already exists. (It would doubtless be of more use in a fleet battle or mêlée than a duel...)