C l o a k i n g . . .

On Thursday, December 18, 1997 7:40 PM, Michael Sandy
[SMTP:mehawk@cnnw.net]
wrote:

Soon this discussion will r e - c l o a k . . .

Having read the discussion, there are two technologies from different
backgrounds

Firstly Star Trek
=============

> Also, Star Trek is remarkably inconsistent about

The Star Trek Cloaking device, yep its inconsistent but there is enough
general concensus about what it does. I think it owns the term 'cloak' as they
came up with it or at least made it popular. I think we have to accept it as
portrayed.

> It is very hard to develop game mechanics for cloaks

I don't use the FT cloak rules exactly for ST as they are not in keeping with
'balance of terror' technology. I don't try to keep them consistent with every
episode I use 'balance of terror' as the cannonical source.

If you've played Star Fleet Academy they do cloaks as they should be and are
consistent with the general background.

> If a cloaked ship is in Real space, and can be affected

Yes you have to plot cloaked ships, having them on the board rather gives the
game away. Its not a big deal for a few ships. Putting a datum down where a
ship cloaked can help.

> If a cloaked ship isn't in Real Space the mechanics

For phased cloaks, in the 'Pegasus' the big E could see from the phased cloak
to drive out of the asteroid and up the Romulan's nose. Its in the same
universe but its quantum particles are out of phase with the rest of matter,
whatever.

We'll agree the ST VI cloak was a plot device/prototype
and ignore it.

> Having to get a +1 (or whatever) on a sensor lock for

For detection, movement is the factor to use as that is what consistently gave
the game away.

For attack mostly area effect weapons (depth charges) mines, plasma cannons,
proximity torpedoes Blanketing with beams weapons could be simulated, with a
range modifier or some other device

The gas homing torp in ST VI was a plot device so could ignore it.

> Passive scanning shouldn't affect a ship's stealth, nor

I'd agree that active scans should give it away, bearing but not distance.

> There is a lot I don't understand about the Star Trek

ST scanners use sub-space which is faster than warp
technology. Cloaks bend light. I wouldn't look for a basis in reality here and
its illogical captain.

Secondly Stealth
==============
Here we have proper stealth technology, this is probably more realistic and
based on emission control and hiding in space. this is what we find in Honor
Harrington and the Weber Starfire stuff. ECM etc fit into this background and
technology.

So I'd amend my proposed systems as

1) ST Cloaks
   i)  light bending/obscurement
o you can see where you're going o passive scans don't allow detection
       o movement/active scan allows detection (bearing only)
o must decloak to fire o no basis in reality

ii) phased o you can see where you're going o must decloak to fire
       o passive scans/movement/active scan don't allow detection
       o its banned
o no basis in reality

2) Stealth o ECM reveals prescence but not position, minimises detection o
Emission control (EMCON) minimises detection o Passive scans don't allow
detection
   o firing/active scans allow detection
o basis in reality

sincerely