One thing bothers me about ECM, ECCM, Stealth, Sensors, and the like is the
great variety of matter and energy in space. I believe some of the earlier
concepts involving cloaking technology involved "bending light" around an
object so you can "see" it. So you wait for the ship to move through a comet's
tail and look for the wake the cloaked ship makes.
Now we know about solar winds, radio pulses, radiation,
micro-meteorites,
"dark matter", etc. etc. A physical object moving through the aether
[not
sure of the exact spelling at this moment but I'm refering to the fact that
"space" is not a "vacuum"] is going to bounce, absorb, reflect, leave a trail,
as it moves OR as the aether moves around it.
I feel that, at best, systems that jam the guidance systems of torpedoes,
fly-by fighters and the like might be closest we could ever really come
to any sort of ECM system.
Even making a ship "invisible" to a torpedo will still leave some kind of
wake. All the targeting system has to do is determine the edges of the wake
and target one of the edges/sides of the wake.
Granted, this is Science Fiction and we can do just about anything. But, will
adding this level of complexity actually add to the game flow and enjoyment?
Your Thoughts? Comments?
Sincerely
> One thing bothers me about ECM, ECCM, Stealth, Sensors, and the like
Personally, I have always liked "cloaked" ships as I feel they add a whole new
element to the game. We tend to limit cloaking vessels to escort sizes only,
and these become the subs of space. For this reason alone I feel it is worth
having something close (though not nesecerily complete) to a complete cloak.
> Now we know about solar winds, radio pulses, radiation,
I think that engine emmisions are far more likely to get you detected. No
space is not a vacuum, but it is VERY diffuse. Once you are talking about a
couple of particles per cubic meter, well yes you may scatter them, but will
you scatter them towards the detector? Can your detector distinguish that few
particles in the background mess of radiation etc. I agree a ship will not be
completely undetectable, but it may be that it's
signal/background noise ratio is small enough that what emmisions it
does throw out of of no consequence. We allow ships who are not actively
thrusting (to reduce thier own noise) to attempt to locate cloaked ships.
Again think back to the sub analogy. A sub moving fast and shallow is easy to
detect, but if it's running silent and deep, you have a real problem. Now you
may find it if you yourself stop engines, active ping etc. all this leads to a
fun game, but is more complecated that some people want to go.
To go back to your examples above. Solar wind only becomes an issue when I am
near a sun, or not moving with the wind (ie at the same speed and direction).
radio pulses etc, may work, but I'm sure there are people out there who could
think of effective counter measures. Can they be bent? Are they directional
(meaning you would have to point them straight at my ship). I am assuming the
cloaked vessel is attempting to minimise it's radiation emmisions, but if it
thrusts etc. then there is more chance of
it being detected. Can your detectors track all these micro-meteorites
etc.? Can my cloaked ship emmit a false signal of "space"? I have to say that
I think there is nothing wrong with cloaks and ECM. It depends on what flavour
of game you are looking for.
> I feel that, at best, systems that jam the guidance systems of
Certainly these will always be essential methods, but it wouldn't be science
fiction if we didn't use a bit of imagination.
> Even making a ship "invisible" to a torpedo will still leave some kind
Yes it will leave a wake, but that wake may be to weak to detect. I'm sure
there are people who design tracking systems world wide who would break down
and cry at a phrase like "All the targeting system has to do is determine the
edges of the wake..."
> Granted, this is Science Fiction and we can do just about anything.
But, will
> adding this level of complexity actually add to the game flow and
Depends on the game you want. For my games then yes they do, but if you are
after a quick afternoon game for a group of beginners then probably not. One
of the strenghts of FT is the ability to expand and experiment. Completely
different games are made possible by the smallest changes.
I have nothing against cloak/ECM free systems/backgrounds and also use
them reguarly, but I feel that they are an essential part of OPTIONAL rules.
-Entropy
Two questions relate to ECM and sensors. What can I see? What can I hit? To be
able to enguage a target you must be able to see (or know roughly where it
is). But how do you see something in space? The simplest senor to use is the
eyeball Mk1. But this may not help. Afterall the target could be over a
million kms (for you Yanks, miles) away an less than 100m (yards) long,
painted black or some non reflective finish so that unless it is doing a main
engine burn or is between you and a planet or star you won't see a thing. Do
some amatuer astronomy and see if you can spot a comet
(other than Hale-Bop) or an asteroid. It could take you months or years
if at all. Second way to observe is by methods like Radar. However the good
old U.S. of A. has shown the world, particularly Iraq that this can be
ineffective with the right stealthing. Stealthing also applys to heat
(infa-red) and no doubt can be done for UV as well. You might try
detecting a targets mass through gravity waves but this will only work if the
ship is massive, moving fast or well away from any major gravity well, like
planets. As like naval battles here on Earth which, with one exception, have
virtually been all fought near land, space fleet bettles will take place in
proximity of planets to either capture or defend them. Which ever way you look
at it, it is possible to "hide". ECM as used here and in the real world isn't
strictly correct. Afterall the chaff and flare pods on modern warships act to
protect them from senors but aren't strictly Electronic Counter Measures. ECM
in games terms is looking at systems that can decoy (presenting a false
target) confuse (present with multiple targets) hide (ie. smoke) jam and
otherwise degrade the preformance of sensors and targeting systems. ECM does
not, repeat does not render a target completely invisible, but it does make it
much harder to hit. I guess what I'm saying is that military technology moves
forward by competition between the ability to defend yourself and the ability
to hurt your opponent. If you find a way to do something someone will find a
way to stop you. I for one think that EW is a much neglected thought important
part of FT. I keep an eye out for replys.
Tony
twilko@ozemail.com.au "I don't fight to be fair I fight to win."
> At 01:56 PM 29-05-97 -0500, John wrote:
But, will
> adding this level of complexity actually add to the game flow and