FT: EW

5 posts ยท Apr 8 2000 to Apr 11 2000

From: GBailey@a...

Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 10:09:54 EDT

Subject: FT: EW

Yes, keep EW simple, which may be more difficult than it seems. I tried to add
a little something, 1) Targetting Jammer, 2) Cloaking Jammer that sort of
mimics the Minbari effect. One player has been using the Cloaking Jammer on
his "Whitestar" and seems to like it, even though he's been blasted to pieces
with it (but then getting to

point blank range to two uber MD2 battlewagons does that to anyone). And what
those battlewagons did was allocate several weapons to several FCs and have
each FC make a targetting roll using the Superior Sensor on the ship. Some
weapons did not get to fire, others did at plusses to the range but many times
the range addition didn't matter for the beams. I added a note to the effect
below. It did add a lot of rolling which I didn't care for but with one ship
having it then it wasn't too bad, also the ship with an active Cloaking Jammer
cannot fire so it saves on that ship rolling attack dice. The Targetting
Jammer hasn't been tested.

New cloaking & jamming rules based on the sensors and jammers from MT, I
copied the MT stuff so that everything is here for comparison. I renamed the
MT Jammer to Sensor Jammer to distinguish it from the Targeting Jammer which
also works as a Sensor Jammer.

SYSTEM........................Mass....Cost...Effect for sensor or
lock-on
Basic Sensors...................0...........0.....Roll = 1
Enhanced Sensors.............1..........15....Roll = 1D6
Superior Sensors...............2..........30.....Roll = 1D6+2
Sensor Jammer.................2...........20.....Subtract 1D6 from
sensor roll.
Wide Area Jammer............3...........30.....As Sensor Jammer but for
any
.............................................................vessel
within
12".
Targeting Jammer..............4...........40.....Subtract 1D6 from
sensor or
.............................................................lock-on
roll.
Cloaking Jammer...............5%......x10.....As targeting jammer except

.............................................................use 3D6,
may not fire weapons
.............................................................when
active.

Sensors work as per the rules for scanning ships unless the target ship has an
active Cloaking Jammer. A ship with an active Cloaking Jammer must be
successfully scanned, roll > 0, before movement or else its miniature or
counter remains at its current location. A ship must plot the status of its
Cloaking Jammer as active or not active.

Note: The "Whitestar" player didn't use this part of the rules and always
moved his ship.

When a ship fires it must have a weapons lock on the target. Unless the target
vessel is under the effects of an active targeting jammer then no roll is
required and the lock is automatic.

Roll.........Targetting effect from lock-on roll
< -6.........may not fire at target
-1 to -6.....add positive value of roll to the range (see note)
0+............May fire normally

Note: may not be a sufficient modifier. The value x2 maybe?

Glen

From: GBailey@a...

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:56:03 EDT

Subject: FT: EW

Just modifying the effective range without die rolls is a good idea. We should
look at FB1 ships not having sensors & jammers as a good thing. This means we
can throw out the MT stuff and do it differently. Besides, if the enemy
doesn't have jammers, and sensors cannot improve our chances beyond what the
normal FCs do, then why have those expensive components?

I'm not sure about sensors, but the current MT jammers are out of line for
effecting combat. A small ship with an MT jammer pays a higher percentage cost
than a large ship for the same effect.

So if we're going to have jammers that affect combat, then they too should be
based on a% of the ship. To go with MT terminology, costs would be some
multiple (say x10?):
Enhanced jammer, mass 5%, +6" range
Superior Jammer, mass 10%, +12" range

Now for sensors/scanners that negate jamming we could
keep them as a set mass & cost, but require one for each FC that wants to
negate jamming. They would reduce
the range modification of jammers, Enhanced -6" &
Superior -12".

Glen

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:10:38 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: FT: EW

> On 10-Apr-00 at 23:56, GBailey@aol.com (GBailey@aol.com) wrote:

I like the floating scale better. When you are toe to toe with your opponent
you shouldn't have much penalty no matter what he has in the way of jammers.
(Flashback to a small child telling me he was going to put on his jammers
because he had to go to bed)

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:46:42 -0700

Subject: Re: FT: EW

> So if we're going to have jammers that affect combat, then

Sensors, if they are going to affect combat ranges for weapons on a ship, must
also have a% based pricing system.

From: Michael Llaneza <maserati@e...>

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:28:23 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: FT: EW

> --- Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@aimnet.com> wrote:

One might also consider paying for high-end EW equipment as a percentage
of the PV of the whole fleet. One EW ship backing up a cruiser squadron is
useful, but the same ship providing EW support to a BDN squadron is enhancing
the utility of a much more expensive fleet.