Another possible tractor beam function (therefore emitter function): beamed power.

When two ships have established a tractor link power can be transferred from the tractoring ship to the tractored ship. the transfer is voluntary on both ends. The tractored ship can't suck power out of the tractoring ship and the tractoed ship doesn't have to accept the power.

beamed power weakens over distance the same way tractor beam energy does. (i.e. at 2 hexes the tractored ship only gets 1/2 the power sent to it by the tractoring ship and at 3 hexes it's 1/3)

The transfer requires a working tracotr beam on both sides and the receiving ship must spend 1 point of power to activate a tractor beam to receive a transfer.

The transfer technology is incompatible with standard technology ships and X1 ships but these ships can refit tractor boxs to receive power (but not send). A tractor box with a mech link cannot also be refitted as a beamed power receiver.

Hmmm...This might make a nifty transporter ability instead. What does everyone think?

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 12:57 pm: Edit

It should be ineffecient at all ranges, and you shouldn't be able to "suck" power from an unwilling ship.

R0 power transferred = 75% of power added.
R1 power transferred = 50% of power added.
R2 power transferred = 25% of power added.
If you had to have a R3, make it only 10% of the power added.⁴²

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Robert,

I belive I stated it can't suck power from ships.

I can see inefficiency at all ranges except perhaps 0. Just round all freactions down.

If used as a transporter function, the isn't as much need for inefficiency because both ships will have to have a down shield to do it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Suck power from ships via a tractor would be a very cool "one of" alien or monster technology.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Yeah...I don't think I like transefering power via tractor at speed.

Now if we had an "any-box" link that meant that two docked ships could join their "any" boxes and transfere power at a much higher rate ( say ten points per turn ) in addition to the power transfere availibe to docked ships, then that would be cool...particularly for X2 ships docked inside bases.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Docked ships (after a 3-turn delay) can transfer unlimited power as it stands.

I wanted to be able to do it on the fly.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 05:48 pm: Edit

That's my thinking for the Emitter's Power Beam function.

Emitter
SSD: EMIT
Can function as either a Tractor Beam, a Transporter Beam, or a Power Beam.
Can switch between Tractor/Transporter functions after a 4-impulse delay.
Power Beam function must operate over entire turn.
Each unit carries redundant Tractors (typ. 1-2) and Transporters (typ. 1-2).

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

What about drogues that can be deployed at speed 24 (instead of the speed 12 they have now?)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 02:30 am: Edit

...which elimintaes a huge balancing disadvantage.

By Kraig Uhl (Runningman) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

How about an option for the any box in which the X2 ship can use it as an option for drone defense much like the ability of a scout to shut down drones. Say the ship gets one or two rolls a turn for a chance to shut down drones when an any box is powered and dedicated to this purpose as long as the ship still has a its full sensor rating. THe chance to shut off drones maybe worse than a true scout but still something that gives the ship something other than ADDs and phasers to shoot down drones.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

That's normally a scout function and a very limited one.

We'd add it to the S-bridge before an any-box.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 04:05 pm: Edit

That is part of the S-Bridge propsal although it's a limited part of the full Scout function (i.e. one chance against one target).

It may not be in the final rule if there ever is one. This function is controversial and I understand why. I think limiting it to a single target isn't too much though. The range of the function could also be limited. Eight hexes sounds good to me.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Loren,

That's right. I remember.

We limited it to a single lock-on attempt because we didn't want a fleet of X2 ships popping drones like soap bubbles.

Adding a lock-on breaking function to a system box would definitely have that effect.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Ya.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 07:17 pm: Edit

I still think a sliding scale of lock-on knock down is better for the S-Bridge. If an XCA meets a D7W and a D7D, it really will need to knock down drones like soap bubbles.


Even if you can auto-kill a type IF drone with a single Ph-6 shot ( and most Ph-6 tables say different ) then your 8Ph-5s will only let you fight off 16 drones and another two from you're own drone racks is a total of 18...absolute maximum...pity you can expect a lot of type IVF and armoured drones, particularly type IVF-A drone as they can't be autokilled by a pair of Ph-6 shots under any Ph-6 table yet presented.
Also most Ph-6 tables have a chance of doing only three points of damage at R1 which means you'll be shooting down only about 11 of the incomming type IFs instead of 16.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Or in a post-war scenario, the XCA might just run away.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Then why build an XCA in the first place.

Since a Klingon DXD should be able to pass through all the drones the D7D and D7W can throw and still give a good blast from her heavies; the XCA will need to be able to either do likewise, better or never be built.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 07:55 pm: Edit

You miss my point, MJC (probably because I didn't state it).

The post-war period is marked by economic recovery. Star Fleet may very well order its most expensive starship to "save itself" if the situation becomes overwhelming. It's then possible the XCA could return with reinforcements (XDD for example) and plaster the Klingons. Or hang back and dance with the Klingons until reinforcements show up.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:12 pm: Edit

More to the point, MJC left out tractors, T-bombs, X2 ADDs, GX2 Racks...

I mean sheesh. There are a lot of ways to avoid getting hit by a drone besides phasers.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Not to mention that a single XCA stacked against a D7D and D7W is already outgunned and will be facing pretty darn big drone waves for any single ship. "Needing" to be able to pass through a massive drone wave isn't a design factor in any one cruiser sized ship, unless it's an escort. That being said, most of the XCA designs I've seen bruted about can easily handle a half dozen or so drones with no difficulty. I personally don't want the S-bridge to have any drone lock-on breaking features at all, and would rather leave that to the scouts. ID drones, yes...break lock ons, no. But, that's me.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Yeah...I did leave out tractors but...three turns is long time to hold tractors.

If you had an XCA of any design presented, do you think you could deal with 6 type IVF drones every turn plus a bunch of other drones as the SPs and ADDs may provide?


Also if the ship does come back at a latter time to recapture this particular planet then:-
1) you can't garrenttee that next time they don't have a Klingon XCA sittinin orbit ready to aid them in maintaining their neutrality ( and trad links with the Feds.
2) You can't garrentee that a friendly neighbour hasn't sent his planetary defence CVA ( hack an AxCVL would do ) group to increase the defenses.
3) That Orion mercinaries haven't been hired.
4) That what ever it is you wanted ( say mineible metals ) haven't already been consummed.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Personnally I think cruisers are designed to brute their way through drones.

Consider a Fed CA and a Kzinti CS.
By tractoring one type V drone and killing three type V drones with Ph-3 pairs at R1, the Fed CA can brute its way through the Kzinti drone swarm and I think that is done on purpose.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:46 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Personnally I think cruisers are designed to brute their way through drones.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If they are designed to do it, why, then, does nearly every cruiser in the game have a plus refit that adds some kind of anti-drone capability?

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 09:07 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If you had an XCA of any design presented, do you think you could deal with 6 type IVF drones every turn plus a bunch of other drones as the SPs and ADDs may provide?

---