From: Izenberg, Noam <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:03:56 -0500
Subject: A Stealth Primer (and [FT-AAR] a NAC/NI AAR - "Wargames")
Sorry I wasn't able to join the discourse this weekend. I'll also be mostly
absent the rest of this week, but I'll calrify what I can for now about
Stealth.
Stealth Tech
1) Stealth Hull - comes in 2 levels and makes a ship harder to hit.
Mass is same as partial and full streamlining., cost 50% more (3/mass).
Stealth level 1 reduces enemy range bands by 1/4. Stealth level 2
(Super Stealth) reduces range bands by 1/3. Includes vs. Fighter , SML,
and PDS (i.e. fighters bust be within 5" or 4" to attack, SMLs must be
within 5 "or 4" to acquire target, PDS anti-ship at 5" or 4").
Enhanced sensors tied with Firecon reduce stealth level by 1, Special sensors
by 2. Stealth also effects detection (but rules unworked) SSD symbol: Black
Hexagon next to damage track for each level. Stealth 1 ships cannot have Super
strength hulls, Steath 2 ships cannot have Strong or Super hulls. PSB: Special
hull construction and materials, sacrificing hull integrity for reduced sensor
profile.
2) Stealth Fighter - Stealth fighters are +12pts/group and are the
same as Heavy fighters except for PSB (stealthy hull
design/shape/materials rather than an active jamming or screening
system). Super-Stealth (Stealth level 2) fighters cost +24pts/group and
act as having Screen 2 vs. PDS/ADFC/other fighters. This is more
balanced than forcing PDS/ADFC to have reduced range, IMHO, as the
latter way would give a range for fighters to be immune to ship-based
defenses.
3) Stealth System (not tested). ECM version of stealth with same levels and
effects, but damageable via needle attack or threshold. Mass similar to
screen, cost ~ 2x screen or more. Ships with stealth system
can't use screens or enhanced sensors. PSB - more like the Minbari
stealth system in the B5 universe.
Oprationally, stealth 1 is harder to use, as the range reduction is smaller
(This assessment from the first ime I took Stealth ships against Indy over a
month ago. Several additional strategic problems resulted in my being mauled,
but keeping the range to where I needed it was a bear.
NI AAR analysis: I can concur with Indy on most everything in his report. NI
ships have fewer systems than average ships of the same mass, due tot hte
stricutres of stealth, and the desire for long range weapons. The CA's (CH's
actually) had 2 class 3's each and 4 PDS. Once CE had 2 class 3's and 1 PDS,
the other had 2 Class 2's 4 PDS, and an ADFC. The NI was fortunate with
rerolls early in the game, and did well with thresholds and damage control in
later turns (After the first CH was destroyed). Poor indy rolled Crappily much
of the game. I think I rolled about average overall, and with better timing
than Indy.Givent eh length of the combat, If we had kept on, my ships would
probably have done as Indy opined, but if the law of averages were not Indy's
enemy, chances are he would slowly be getting systems up while I hunted him
down and make things more expensive during the 'mopping up'. I wouldn't
consider the fight a rout for NI by any means, as a few more 4's instead of
3's on indy's part would have left me with at 2
fewer ships by late-mid game. (or 3's instead of 4's on mine).
I do believe the scenario should probably be re-played as-is,
though, to check balance. I would like for stealth to be a viable, balanced
system.
As for fighter-rerolls, I always thought of PDS fire as abstracting a
close firefight where a bunch of small guns were blasting at a bunch of small
ships. If all the fighters are 'heavy' than each is protected by their own
armor, and one being destryed makes it no easier to destroy another, so
rerolls should be the same as initial rolls. Stealth would use the same
justification. Ican also see it the other way around, but that much weaker
protection would make it harder, IMHO to justify the additional 12 points per
fighter group for heavy fighters.
'zall for now.