I want to throw some numbers out to see the empirical effects of a D6 to
lock-on roll.
In essence, a die roll modifier is applied to a "Break Lock-on" number.
If the defender has to roll a 7 or better on a D6, then a Lock-on is
automatic if the DRM is +0. If the DRM is +2 then the defender will
break the Lock-on when he rolls a 5 or 6. (However the DRM is determined
the result will be what the defender adds to his die roll to compare to
7+.)
This makes the odds of a Lock-on equal to 1-((1-(6-DRM)/6)^(#FireCons))
If DRM=+1 the odds of successful Lock-on is 83% w/1 FCS and 97% w/2 FCS.
If DRM=+2 the odds of successful Lock-on is 67% w/1 FCS and 89% w/2 FCS.
If DRM=+3 the odds of successful Lock-on is 50% w/1 FCS and 75% w/2 FCS.
But to get an 88% chance of a lock-on the BDN would have to dedicate 3
FCS to its target. Maybe DRM+3 should be the max.
Comparing a Class-3 Beam and a Pulse Torp, the current odds of a hit and
average damage inflicted are...
1 FireCon w/Lock-on DRM: +0 Lock-on odds = 100%
Shielding Level of Target: Unshielded Cumulative Odds to Hit at Each Range
Band Weapon 6mu 12mu 18mu 24mu 30mu 36mu
Class-3 Beam 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50
Pulse Torpedo 0.83 0.67 0.50 0.33 0.17
Shielding Level of Target: Unshielded Average Damage Points Inflicted at Each
Range Band Weapon 6mu 12mu 18mu 24mu 30mu 36mu
Class-3 Beam 2.40 2.40 1.60 1.60 0.80 0.80
Pulse Torpedo 2.92 2.33 1.75 1.17 0.58
Now looking at the odds of a hit and average damage inflicted with a
Lock-on DRM=+1...
1 FireCons w/Lock-on DRM: +1 Lock-on odds = 83%
Shielding Level of Target: Unshielded Cumulative Odds to Hit at Each Range
Band Weapon 6mu 12mu 18mu 24mu 30mu 36mu
Class-3 Beam 0.82 0.82 0.69 0.69 0.44 0.44
Pulse Torpedo 0.78 0.60 0.44 0.29 0.14
Shielding Level of Target: Unshielded Average Damage Points Inflicted at Each
Range Band Weapon 6mu 12mu 18mu 24mu 30mu 36mu
Class-3 Beam 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 0.67 0.67
Pulse Torpedo 2.43 1.94 1.46 0.97 0.49
Due to the "only" 5/6 chance of the Lock-on roll. The Odds of a Hit for
the B3 is lowered by 94% up to 12mu, 91% up to 24mu, and 88% up to 36mu. The
Odds of a Hit for the PT is lowered by 93% to 6mu, 90% to 12mu, 88% to 18mu,
86% to 24mu, and 85% to 30mu.
Though the relative difference in the to hit averages decreases with
range, the Average Damage is reduced by the Lock-on odds of 83% for both
weapons at all ranges. I suspect the former is due to the different
to-hit mechanics, I was not (too) surprised with the relative difference
of the average damage numbers.
If the defenders are ready to roll their "Break Lock-on" dice as soon as
the firing ship has announced all its targets, I think that each turn would
not feel noticeably longer. And I would expect this âlesser average damage
per shotâ to add just a couple of turns to most games. And the firing ship
just has to allocate 1 more FCS then the target gets
DRM to have 95% or more change to lock-on. So though the mechanics and
execution of this extra roll may not be much, the determination of the
DRM+# could get very involved very quickly.
> Jerry Cantrill wrote:
> I want to throw some numbers out to see the empirical effects of a D6
number.
> If the defender has to roll a 7 or better on a D6, then a Lock-on is
Correct so far.
> Comparing a Class-3 Beam and a Pulse Torp, the current odds of a hit
Correct, though the "cumulative odds to hit" is a pretty irrelevant comparison
(unless you're shooting at targets with a single damage point
remaining) since the amount of damage per "hit" is so different for the two
weapon types.
> Shielding Level of Target: Unshielded
Correct.
> Now looking at the odds of a hit and average damage inflicted with a
...but here you've done something wrong; I just can't identify what it is.
The B3's hit probability at range 0-12 with 1 FCS against a +1 lock-on
DRM should be
(5/6)*(1-(1/2)^3) = 0.83*0.88 = 0.73,
not 0.82: of the 83% of the shots that are fired at all (the remaining 17%
don't get a lock so can't be fired) 88% hit, so the cumulative P(hit) is 88%
of 83% ie.
0.83*0.88 = 0.73. At range 12-24 the hit probability is 0.63, and at
range
24-36 it is 0.42; similarly the P-torp to-hit probabilities with a
single
FCS against a +1 lock-on DRM are 0.69, 0.56, 0.42, 0.28 and 0.14
respectively. All of these are (of course) exactly 83% of the hit
probabilities against a zero lock-on DRM.
> Shielding Level of Target: Unshielded
*These* values OTOH are correct.
> Due to the "only" 5/6 chance of the Lock-on roll. The Odds of a Hit
You mean "...is lowered TO 94%" (0.82/0.88 =~ 0.94), or "...is lowered
BY 6%".
(If you lower a probability of 0.88 BY 94%, you end up with
0.88*(1-0.94) =
0.053, which is quite far removed from the B3's hit probability in this case.)
However, the "94%" value is based on the incorrect "0.82" hit rate. The real
value is
0.73/0.88 = 0.83, ie. exactly identical to the lock-on odds.
***
> And the firing ship just has to allocate 1 more FCS then the target
Which is one of the reasons why this is a game balance problem: it screws
those ships
which can't *afford* "just 1 more FCS" due to their low Mass - ie. the
escorts, and to a lesser extent cruisers.
Regards,
JerryC:
> And the firing ship just has to allocate 1 more FCS then the target
Oerjan:
> Which is one of the reasons why this is a game balance problem: it
And anyway, why should more FCS improve your odds of locking onto the same
target?
"Jones, I noticed your lockon score for the last exercise was 83%. Fleet
training norms specify 95%. Care to explain what happened?" "Well, Captain, we
need the version 6.2 upgrade for our InstaZap software, and we haven't got
it." "I think I authorized a purchase req for that six months ago. Hasn't it
come in yet?" "Yessir, but FireCon Two got it and they won't make a copy for
us." "Are you sure? FireCon Two only scored 85% on the FireEx." "Well,
Skipper, I think that's because all the FireCon crews were all supposed to
replace their retroencabulators for the new one with the reciprocating dingle
arm. And I don't think FireCon Two did that." "Jones, do you have any idea why
they wouldn't have replaced it? "Well, Captain, I couldn't say." "Hm.....I
notice you didn't say you don't know. Do you suppose FireCon Two never got
their parts?" "Uh....could be, Captain." "And how many of the new hardware
pieces do you have, Jones?" "Er....I think we might just possibly have, um,
one extra, Captain...that we were keeping as a spare, like."
> On Tuesday 28 June 2005 17:48, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
The way I see it, is that FCS represent sensors. If you have more FCS, then
you have bigger and better sensors.
> And anyway, why should more FCS improve your odds of locking onto the
The way I see it, is that FCS represent sensors. If you have more FCS, then
you have bigger and better sensors.
---
I guess that would make sense, if there wasn't an equally valid and much
more "canon-ish" explanation. More FCS gives greater redundancy, but not
better quality.
Throughout the various rules-sets FCS have been FCS and Sensors have
(other
than MT) been ignored - and in MT they had virtually nothing to do with
FCS.
Apples and Oranges.
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> You have *more* sensors, or more computer power, allowing you to track
Assigning multiple sensor banks to better target using
interferometry-based computations and more computer power to do those
computations results in a better target lock?
--Tim
> Samuel Penn wrote:
> >And anyway, why should more FCS improve your odds of locking onto the
You have *more* sensors, or more computer power, allowing you to track a
larger number of targets simultaneously... but why would they be *better* at
targetting one single target?
Regards,
If you can't PSB this then you aren't trying.
1. Doubling the surface area of your telescope greatly increases the
resolution. (square rooot? Too long since my optics class.) 2. Human element,
2 crews on 2 FCS.
Roger Books
> On 6/28/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 June 2005 18:20, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
FCS could be considered to give: 1) Bigger sensor dish, providing better
resolution. 2) More power to pump into active sensors. 3) More computing power
to make sense of the results.
There's currently no real way to model a ship which is basically a flying
sensors platform. Allowing lots of FCS sort of allows this (the MT 'enhanced
sensors' aren't really enough since they are at most only a few mass) so I
look at it as a top down rather than bottom up answer.
I've been toying with each doubling of the number of FCS gives a bonus, so you
really need a big dedicated ship if you want a big bonus to fire control.
To get the best resolution, you're better off combining sensor information
from multiple ships, since that gives a big baseline (far bigger than you can
fit on a single ship) but I'm not sure how that could work in FT.
I like the idea of having a couple of ELINT vessels which can
pass targetting info onto the rest of the fleet - it gives the
enemy something to aim at. But then, I also like the idea of C&C vessels
(something like the Z9M9Z I guess) which can process all the sensor info and
give tactical bonuses to the rest of the fleet (either targetting or
initiative for example) and provide yet another big target.
> --- Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The way I see it, is that FCS represent sensors. If
I just must ask:
If FCS is sensors, what are the sensors?
If you have 2 1945 radar sets, do they equal a 1960s radar set in ability?
Bye for now,
> John Leary wrote:
> I just must ask:
If you have 2 1960 radar sets, and the ability to allocate them to different
targets or target areas or even the same targets or target areas, isn't that
better than one?
2 radar sets sweeping the target at alternating intervals gives a quicker
"refresh" rate on what that target is up to, thus increasing the ability to
respond quickly to it's actions.
In the case of weapons systems, that's better firing solutions.
At this point, THIS part of the discussion has come down to arguing PSB,
not whether to include lock-on rolls or not.
--Tim
> On Tuesday 28 June 2005 19:38, John Leary wrote:
If you mean the MT sensors, they're ignored. It's not as if they do much, and
I was trying to model B5 Wars ELINT at the time, and FCS are already closest
to what was needed to do that.
> If you have 2 1945 radar sets, do they equal
Not knowing anything about capability of historical radar sets, I
couldn't tell you. I think EA sensors gave -2" effective range for
each level though, Centauri -3" and Minbari -4".
Since base FT doesn't have tech levels though, such questions probably aren't
that important.
> Samuel Penn and then John L wrote:
FCS represents target acquisition and tracking capability, in a very general
sense. Since the sensors and the ships themselves are imaginary, FCS can
represent whatever we like. It's a game, not a simulation.
I do like the idea of special "Area Fire Control Systems" analogous to ADFCs
that allow one ship to supply target information for another.
> If you have 2 1945 radar sets, do they equal
I've read that in the 1991 Gulf War British warships
with older radar sets could indeed track F-117 stealth
bombers, because the RAM coating had been designed for shorter wavelengths.
"old" = "worse" is a dangerous line of thinking.
And how do we compare optical, radar, gravimetric, and for all I know
telepathic Sa'Vasku sensors? Let's not get bogged down in details. Ships have
appropriate fire
control systems for the genre/setting and it just
works against the enemy, ditto stealth, ECM, etc.
cheers,
--- "Flak Magnet (Tim)" <flakmagnet@comcast.net>
wrote:
> At this point, THIS part of the discussion has come
O.K. Lets just bring back the enhanced and superior sensors to provide the
desired difference in the sensors for lock on. Might as will bring back the
jammers as well.
This way the player must pay in points and mass for the advantages.
Bye for now,
> If you can't PSB this then you aren't trying.
Hmm, with radar I seem top recall the angular resolution is directly related
to antenna diameter, and inversely related to the wavelength used.
Also, I would assume that in the future the sensors would be a distributed
array across the whole hull. Doubling the number of sensor elements would
increase performance on the whole, too.
Cheers,
Another off the subject query. If British radars could pick up US stealth
fighters during the Gulf war, doesn't that mean the original potential targets
of the stealth fighters (the soviet bloc) would have been able to as well
since their equipment tended to be even older that the british.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Another off the subject query. If British radars could pick up US
The matter wasn't as much "age", as it was the frequency band that is used.
There isn't necessarily a correlation between the older British equipment and
Russian equipment, in that regard.
Another important aspect of stelthy airplanes is that the strength of the
returned signal varies strongly with minute differences in angle. This means
that automatic tracking systems may easily get fooled into believing this
isn't a real signal, but rather random noise. A good operator may be able to
determine there is "something there" where the automatic systems fall for the
trick and don't see it.
Cheers,
> John Leary wrote:
> O.K. Lets just bring back the enhanced and
Semantically, I'd like to call them by levels like shields, instead of titles.
So please bear with me.
So you'd have Level 0 sensors through... say, level 3? Level 1 being the
"standard" ones that are presumed to already be on every military ship, level
0 is the merchant designs standard sensors.
Jammers could be designated in the same way.
Sensors and jammers get a number of "beam dice" (with re-rolls) equal to
their level for locking-on and jamming. The difference between the
numer of sensor "hits" vs the jamming "hits" must be =>0 in order for the
firing ship to get a lock. Any sensor hits in excess of 0 minus the jamming
hits could be said to reflect a stronger sensor lock and thus
allow that number of re-rolls FROM BEAM-DICE-TYPE WEAPONS ONLY. (No
rerolling that Pulse-Torp.)
Example: A ship with level 2 sensors attempts a lock on a ship with level 1
jammers. The attacker rolls a 3 and a 4, so he has 1 sensor "hit". The
defender rolls a 3, getting 0 hits. Sensor Hits minus jammer hits = 1.
The attacker gets a lock and can fire, rerolling 1 beam die if he so chooses.
Now, this would slow the game down immensely, which is not desireable,
so unless something can be codified in order to introduce task-force
groupings of ships for orders/movement and firing to speek things up, I
wouldn't expect the suggestion above to gain any traction.. That would
include, I think, task-force based lock-on rolls in which ships in a
task-force combine their sensor and jamming rolls into a pool.
> This way the player must pay in points and mass
Yes, for anything above level 1 military sensors and jammers. Everything
should have it's price. Likewise a discount for having only civillian sensors
(level 0).
In general, for future editions perhaps things like sensors, bridges, life
support and power cores could be seperated out from the "assumed"
components of the ship so that different levels and/or redundant systems
could be introduced. It could make it easier to vary new races and/or
technologies by giving them different costs and/or game effects. Not
sure what I think about that but I thought it so I'm throwing it out there.
--Tim