Hey folks,
If people have time, I'd like some feedback on the follow sensors ideas. The
main goal of the following rules is to put sensors into FT games without
having to redesign the ships in any of the Fleet Books to add the MT systems.
The basis for doing this is merely to use Firecons as the basis for 'standard'
sensors, and try to keep it as simple as possible, while leaving room for MT
systems to be added to 'special purpose' ships that aren't in the Fleet Books.
(i.e. banzai transponders, enhanced sensors, dedicated ECM suites, stealth,
etc, can be retrofitted into these rules relatively easily.)
I want to run a FT scenario at GZG-ECC using blind rules, and this is
what I came up with it. It's a first draft, I've only thought these through, I
haven't had a chance to playtest them. Please be gentle. (8-)
In particular though, if anybody else has done something similar, I'd like to
hear about it. I took a quick look through the list archives, but, didn't find
anything that didn't use MT systems or, they didn't quite have the feel I
wanted (for example, limited scans by ship class.)
Thanks! JGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Ships are placed on board as sensor bogies. To determine more about a ship, or
to fire upon it, you must either get a passive or an active lock on that ship.
BASICS Every ship has enough sensor equipment on board to have one 'free'
lock.
Every additional lock requires a firecon dedicated to maintaining the lock.
This firecon is not available for fire control. A ship can dedicate additional
firecons to either a) increase sensor ranges by 12" or b) increase its own
sensor rolls by 1 or c) decrease opposing sensor rules against itself by one.
(To reflect ECM) These additional firecons are also unavailable for weapons
fire. No more than a bonus or penalty of 2 can be applied to any roll.
No ship may be fired upon unless it has either been actively or passively
locked.
Locks only last for the turn they are made, though, class information, once
revealed, is always available.
Sensor rolls are made right after initiative is rolled. Team who won
initiative has the option of going first or last. Do sensor rolls on a
ship by ship basis (like the fire step.)
PASSIVE LOCKS
A passive lock has a range of 54". Roll a d6 â a 1,2 means no lock,
a 3,4 means a target lock, a 5,6 means you get mass information about the
target,
and a 6+ means you get class information about the target. Once any
ship succeeds with a passive lock, that information is shared amongst all
ships on that side.
Any fire directed at a ship with a passive lock takes a penalty of 1. (It is
assumed that ships are "handing off" targeting information to the rest of the
fleet.)
ACTIVE LOCKS An active lock has a range of 36". A ship that is hit with an
active lock gets a painted chit, while a ship using active systems gets an
active chit. A ship using active systems is immediately revealed on the map,
with class
information, and all enemy ships automatically have a passive lock on that
ship. Roll a d6 â a 1 means no lock, a 2,3 means a passive lock, a
4,5,6+
means a active lock, and class information about the painted ship is revealed.
Any fire directed at a painted ship is done at no penalty.
If the ship that is active is destroyed during the course of a fire segment
(or suffers a threshold hit so that no more firecons are available to maintain
the lock), the active lock becomes a passive lock for the rest of that fire
segment.
INFORMATION Class information is the base configuration of a ship. Exact
damage specifications are NOT revealed. (See below for clarifications.)
Free information: position, velocity (NOT orientation, if playing Vector), ECM
level (number of firecons dedicated to suppressing sensor locks), and two
damage indications â screens up/down, streaming atmosphere (first
penetrating hit), venting plasma (engine damage), firecons active.
FIGHTERS Fighters provide an automatic passive lock against any enemy target
within 6".
> Any fire directed at a ship with a passive lock takes a penalty of 1.
(It is assumed that ships are "handing off" targeting information to the rest
of the fleet.)
I assume you mean "fire directed at a target which is located only by a
passive lock", etc. It reads as if the penalty applied to fire at the sensing
ship, which doesn't make sense.
You don't explain what a "1 penalty" means -- eg how does it affect B's,
PTorps, missiles?
> laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> (It is assumed that ships are "handing off" targeting information to
Sorry, yeah, fire directed at the target that has a passive lock on it.
> You don't explain what a "1 penalty" means -- eg how does it affect
That was my shorthand, simply because I don't have all the weapons rules
memorized, especially for the aliens in FB2. (8-) Doing a quick lookup
however...
For anything using the beam mechanic and P-Torps, the to-hit roll is
reduced
by a -1. A natural 6 is still treated as a natural 6.
For SMLs, -1 to the number of missiles rolled (this penalty may not be
severe enough, now that I think about it.)
Nova Cannon / Wave Gun aren't affected because they affect a large area.
(And this would apply to any other area-effect weapon that relies on
one gigantic explosion/burst of energy.)
Kra'Vak Guns: -1 to hit
Sa'Vasku Stinger Nodes: -1 to hit
Phalon Pulsers: -1 to hit
Plasma Bolts: -1 to damage roll
I think that's it....
JGH
Hi,
It seems to me that the effective ranges are reversed. One would expect active
sensors to have much greater range than passive.
Also, how about having a "bogey" firing using a passive lock being treated
exactly as if it had just executed an active scan attempt.
Cheers,
Howdy,
> Tony Christney wrote:
Doh! No, it means I lost track of which section I was writing in.
Active is 54", passive is 36", just like FT. (8-)
> Also, how about having a "bogey" firing using a passive lock
*nod* That's a good idea, and makes sense from a logic standpoint, I'm not
sure if it would be too much of a limitation from a gameplay standpoint. I'll
write it in and playtest it though, and see what happens.
Thanks! JGH
> It seems to me that the effective ranges are reversed. One would
It seems to me we had a good healthy 'discussion' on this. I think the point
was that passive can look farther, but active is better at things moderately
close. Think of switching on a torch in the yard to have a look at something
going bump in the night. Active is MUCH better. Now look at the dot on the
tower half a mile away. Switching the torch on and off only gives away your
position. The diffused light has no useful effect over the distance. Inverse
square law, and all that.
I don't think anyone made believers out of the other, but I figured the PSB
was that over the relatively short spacial distances of unalloyed Full Thrust,
it's shooting in your own backyard.
Don't agree? It's rule-tweaking time!
Hmm...
I was about to say I was pretty sure Jerry typo'd; he already said that,
didn't he. ;->=
The_Beast
Hi,
For two sensor suites detecting the same radiation signature, the one with an
active component will have the greater range, since it is able to detect
targets that do not emit with the detected signature, and the reflections will
add to any inherent emissions from the target.
Your torch/tower example is really two examples of active sensors.
The passive component is your eye. The active component is the torch in one
case, and whatever is illuminating the tower in the second. If that same tower
was on top of a hill in the middle of nowhere with a new moon, you won't see
it.
One could write a book on this subject (in fact, some already have.) Only in
very few special case scenarios will passive sensors outrange active sensors.
Cheers, Tony C.
> On 23-Oct-04, at 5:06 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
> It seems to me that the effective ranges are reversed. One would
> the
Tony said:
> For two sensor suites detecting the same radiation signature, the
I don't think you understood Doug's point. Let's take the example of three
battleships, Asad ed Din (actively searching) and Saif ed Din (passively
searching) versus Fernando Poo (passively searching), and assume they're all
equally reflective and have equal sensor suites.
Asad is putting out an amount of energy which has to be sufficient to get to
Fernando, reflect off Fernando, get back to Asad, and still be
above detection threshold. Because the distance from A-to-F-to-A is
twice the distance from A-to-F, the inverse square law means the
reflected signal strength A hears is one quarter the signal strength F hears
(assuming F is a perfect mirror). Therefore Fernando is going to detect Asad a
long time before Asad detects Fernando.
OTOH, Fernando and Saif will detect each other at the same time.
In a message dated 10/23/04 6:34:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> tchristney@telus.net writes:
Hi,
For two sensor suites detecting the same radiation signature, the one with an
active component will have the greater range, since it is able to detect
targets that do not emit with the detected signature, and the reflections will
add to any inherent emissions from the target.
<snip>
I thought passive sonar outranged active sonar. Perhaps it is what your sensor
is detecting.
Gracias,
Hey folks,
Yes, the ranges were a typo. (8-) I'm sticking with MT sensor
ranges, just for the sake of consistency.
Which brings me to this...
> Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
I think the main problem is that you can PSB it either way. For example,
experience on Earth tells us passive sensors are better than active sensors.
However, you can theoretically set something up where the passive signature of
ships is so lost in the background (either by distance or by some other
effect), that the only way to detect targets at range is to hit the sucker
with enough energy that you get a definite
solid return off of it -- which has the unfortunate effect of lighting
you up like a Christmas Tree. (8-)
(Take a look at the Gundam novels -- because jamming is so effective,
the Mk 1 eyeball becomes paramount again and all combat takes place at, for
space combat, at insanely close ranges.)
So, it becomes a playbility issue, and I'm thinking (and I'm guessing Jon
was thinking, though he'll confirm/deny), that a ship needs good reasons
to go active. Detecting targets at longer range and getting a firm fire
control lock seem to be solid enough reasons to give the entire
opposing side a free look and free shot at you. (8-)
JGH
> On Sunday 24 October 2004 02:55, Laserlight wrote:
In this case, if the signal strength of Asad's active search is eight times
the strength of Fernando's passive signature, then Asad will detect Fernando
before Saif would.
Asad has given away its position to everyone else, but that is because it's
just lit itself up like a light house. For Fernando, a passive sensor will
detect Asad before any active sensors will.
Assuming Fernando is running quiet, it may not be giving much away that can be
detected on passive except at very short range, so active may be the only way
to see it at longer ranges.
Going back to Doug's torch/tower example, if the tower is dark, at
night you're not going to see *anything* with passive sensors. Turn the torch
into a huge spotlight, you can (a) see the tower with your active sensor, and
(b) everyone can also see you.
Cue argument about whether it's possible to have stealthy ships in space.
> On 23-Oct-04, at 6:55 PM, Laserlight wrote:
> Tony said:
No, I understood Doug's point. The only reason that A is detected earlier
is because it's active component gives it away - this is already
covered by Jerry's rules. Now if all three ships are in passive mode, then the
range that they will detect each other will be much less than if one or more
are using active sensors.
> I thought passive sonar outranged active sonar. Perhaps it is what
The important thing to understand is that the receiver component is
always passive - the active component only provides a signal to
reflect off the target. Sonar happens to be my area of expertise. Active sonar
has a much greater range, and is much more accurate at detecting range and
bearing to the target.
Cheers,
In doing background research for a FT *short* story I'm writing (NO its not
done) I found basic books on naval methods and procedures to include operation
of various sensing equipment and operations. The use of civilian marine radar
follows the same basic theory as military radar operations.
Basically, as stated earlier, the ACTIVE sensor will generally (without going
into frequency of the radar, and wave propagation theory) let the scanning
vessel detect another vessel at a longer range than a PASSIVE sensor would,
all other thing being equal.
The vessel with the ACTIVE sensor would also be seen further away by vessels
with PASSIVE sensors because you are detecting the active emissions from the
radiating vessel, all other things being equal. This is the lighting a match
in a pitch black room situation where the flame of the match provides
illumination close to the source of the light, yet can be seen by others at a
longer range than the user of the match.
In space, I would expect radar emissions to be curved by the influence of
gravity [after all radar is merely an electromagnetic wave like light] or EM
influences, to include the passage of spaceships. After all, the way (by
accounts of the story) that a B1 *stealth* bomber was allegedly tracked by
Aussies was the detection of the air turbulence
caused by the passage of the airplane on a non-military radar frequency.
In a few FT campaigns that I have been in, the use of active sensors
degraded beyond 54 mu limit set in FT/MT by one point per 12 mu band,
i.e. 54-66 would be at -1, and the effectiveness of the sensors
increased by one point per 12 mu band after the 12 mu standard range
band of 42-54 mu, so 30-42 would be at +1.
What these campaign rules did not cover was the effectiveness of active jammer
also increases as the range between jamming vessel and radiating vessel
narrowed.
Another idea is for LOW OBSERVABILITY (misnomer is Stealth) design features to
be built into the hull to absorb or deflect the radar return away from the
radiating vessel, such as angled construction vs. round construction and use
of emission absorbing materials like carbon fibers and RAM paint. Also, choice
of the color of paint on the hull can add or detract from the reflective
signature. Black and White tend to reflect the full radar return while colors
like red and blue tend to shift the radar return above or below the detection
frequency range of the vessel doing the active scan. The US govt experimented
or had experiments performed that analyzed the effect of paint colors vs.
radar return signal strength with the only variable being the color. I can't
lay my hands on that study though. When I do, I intend to publish a fictional
discussion on the use camoflage on space ships, etc. for my future website,
though the idea sits idly on my hard disk collecting stray elect! rons...
> Thomas Westbrook wrote:
> In space, I would expect radar emissions to be curved by the influence
Stuff like that last line makes it really difficult for me to comment.
Assuming I knew, I couldn't say. I can neither confirm nor deny etc etc.
> What these campaign rules did not cover was the effectiveness of
Nope, or rather, not usually.
An active barrage noise jammer is more effective at longer range, at short
range the sheer power of the active sensor "burns through" the jamming.
Analogy: Imagine a group of people at night. All are carrying candles. One
also carries a massive great white flashlight, and points it straight at you.
You meanwhile have your own flashlight, monochromatic, and more powerful. The
closer people come, the more likely it is that they will be effectively
illuminated, despite the glare. Moving the jammer closer doesn't help as much.
There are also active deception jammers, which inject signals into the
receiver that the transmitter *could* have sent, but didn't, thereby creating
false targets. Other techniques can be used to disrupt tracking
(though not detection). Analogy: look at the strobes on emergency
In a message dated 10/25/04 1:57:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> aebrain@webone.com.au writes:
> Thomas Westbrook wrote:
<snip>. After all, the way (by accounts of the story) that a B1 *stealth*
bomber was allegedly tracked by Aussies was the detection of the air
turbulence caused by the passage of the airplane on a non-military
radar frequency.
<snip> Stuff like that last line makes it really difficult for me to comment.
Assuming I knew, I couldn't say. I can neither confirm nor deny etc etc.
<snip>
Good answer (well, the only correct one too) Alan! There is only so much
'fact' (true or otherwise) that can be fitted into an open source design.
Plus the idea that vehicles that can move FTL certainly declares this to be a
Science FICTION game (hence a reverb of "play the game not the rules" is heard
from off stage at this point) and suggests, to me, that at some point this
process (while good and fine to work out) moves from core design to 'chrome.'
YMMV.
Gracias,
Chris:
> I don't think you understood Doug's point.
Well no one did, because I think I had several points in mind at the same
time. Another one was the difference between simply detecting presence, and
getting detailed useful information, which is a prime distinction in the
original rules, I think. You see an indistinct shadow in the yard, the torch
illuminates and defines, but adds little, even if expanded to a searchlight,
to the dot on the mountain.
Especially if the dot's moving, and the time-to-dot of the beam is a
significant amount.
I definitely was not trying to say active was LESS effective than passive at
any range, just that the improvements to sensor returns that active might add
would hit a threshold of usefulness at a certain distance, given both the
reduction in strength and time issues.
But, that would be me quibbling.
In the end, I was trying to suggest that PSB could probably go either way, and
Jerry had the right idea of trying to keep to the spirit of the original
rules, which I'm still working the comparisons.
The_Beast