Well, its god a bit quiet on this one - but the thread on FT-Subs is
kind of relevant.
Thinking about it, I'd group stealth etc. technologies into two main groups:
Stealth Technology This gives the ship a Stealth Level of 1 to 3, which has
the following effects: Effective Range Multiplier is how much the distance
between the stealth ship an an attacker is increased for reasons of
determining weapons effects.
Fighter/Missile Lock-on is the range of fighter attacks or missile
lock-ons when attacking a stealthed ship (based on a standard range of
6mu, if using reduced ranges in Vector, reduce these numbers accordingly).
Level of Stealth Effective Range Multiplier Fighter/Missile
Lock-On
1 x1.33 4.5 mu 2 x1.5 4 mu 3 x2 3 mu
With regard to sensors, the effects are as follows:
Level of Stealth Sensor Silloette 1 halved 2 quartered
3 1-eighth
There are two main types of Stealth Technology:
Stealth Hull - this uses hull geometry and special sensor-absorbent
materials to defeat sensors. Each level of Stealth Hull uses 5% of Hull MASS
and costs 9 points per MASS. The stealth system is represented by a number of
icons equal to the level, placed on the right hand end of the hull damage
tracks, as follows:
Level of Stealth Hull Track 1 2nd 2 2nd & 3rd 3 1st, 2nd, & 3rd.
When all of a hull track is crossed off, the stealth effect associated with it
is lost, and may not be repaired.
Stealth System. This uses a 'sensor nullifier' field generator instead of hull
material/geometry.
The mass & cost is the same, but the stealth icons are not placed at the end
of the damage tracks, and make threshold rolls normally.
Should the costs be modified to represent the changes in the way the systems
are lost to damage?
Examples of Stealth Technologies: Noam's Stealth Hull Noam's Stealth System
Mimbari Jammer (treat as a stealth system level 3) Blind Field (treat as a
stealth system level 3 that also affects the
carrying ship - say reduce the mass to 10% of hull MASS, which the cost
remaining 9 times the mass of the system?)
The other main group is Cloaking technologies, which I will discuss in a later
message.
> Level of Stealth Effective Range Multiplier Fighter/Missile
THis makes thestep between stealth 2 and 3 larger than the step between 1 and
2. A range multiplier of x2 should be the equivalent of stealth "5".
(step 1-2 = 13% improvement , step 2-3 = 33% improvement).
To add a further follow-up, I did some calculations:
We could consider a stealthed ship to be roughly equivalent to a ship with
longer ranged weapons, making assumptions about the average weapons
load-out of a ship, and allowing for the fact that we may be re-scaling
weapons ranges, but we/re not re-scaling the drive thrust, I determined
that for a Stealth MASS of 5% per level, the cost should be between 9 and 13
times the MASS. So its possible the current cost may be a bit low.
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D7335D@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> > Level of Stealth Effective Range Multiplier Fighter/Missile
Maybe, I've been think that perhaps the MASS of level 3 stealth should
be increased to 20%-25% or so? - or drop it, and have the Blind Field
and Mimbari Jammers using Level 2 Stealth mechanics.
A completely alternate way of handling stealth would be to extend the
Holofield mechanic thus:
Level 1 Stealth = Holofield
Level 2 Stealth = Level-2 screen vs. all beam dice weapons, -2 to hit
for K-guns, Pulse Torpedoes, & Pods, etc.
No level 3
Which is a system that has already been discussed on the list :-)
> On Monday, July 30, 2001 at 07:44:49 AM, gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu wrote:
> > Level of Stealth Effective Range Multiplier Fighter/Missile
making it level 1: 1.5 Level 2: 2 level 3: 2.5 much easir to work out quickliy
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> I determined
In message <628148a24a.Charles@cableol.co.uk>
> Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
[snip my previous answer]
Well, with the current range multipliers; the steps are as follows:
Stealth Level Range Multiplier Difference None x1 1 x1.33 x1.33 2 x1.5 x1.125
3 x2 x1.33
So the step between 2 and 3 is the same as the step between none and 1.
Changing the range multipliers thus:
Stealth Level Range Multiplier Difference 1 x1.25 x1.25 2 x1.5 x1.2 3 x2 x1.33
With a MASS of 5% of hull mass per level gives a cost of 10 times the MASS of
the stealth system.
Missile/Fighter 'Lock-On' ranges are as follows:
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D73361@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
Well, after 'refining' my calculations (see other post) I think I'll
settle on 10 points/MASS (easy to calculate).
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> Well, with the current range multipliers; the steps are as follows:
> Stealth Level Range Multiplier Difference
> So the step between 2 and 3 is the same as the step between none and
My point is that each step should be a smaller increment. - diminishing
returns.
> Changing the range multipliers thus:
> Stealth Level Range Multiplier Difference
I suppose this is do-able. My appraoch for stealth was the opposite of
the way you're looking at: I went for "effective weapon range" versus your
"effective target distance" The way I did it, 9" beam bands and 5" Torp bands)
(stealth 1) is the equivalent of your range muliplier 1.33. I found 9" bands
was more tractable (rather faster) than the, however simple, range
multiplication math. For stealth 2, you get 8" inch beam bands, and 4" torp
bands, or 1.5 x effective range. By that logic, stealth 3 would go 7" beam,
stay 4" for torp.
A 1.25x range increase does not map well into my "effective weapon
range" -
something like 10" beam bands, 5" torp bands. Also at 1.25, stealth 1 is very
hard to use effectively. 1.33 is no picnic either, which is why when I use
stealth, I always go for stealth 2.
I still favor the"effective weapon range" because its faster to figure,
therefore don't like "stealth 3" as 6"/3" unless the cost goes up
exponentially.
> With a MASS of 5% of hull mass per level gives a cost of 10 times the
This I can agree on.
> Missile/Fighter 'Lock-On' ranges are as follows:
> Stealth Level Cinematic Vector
These look good to me (except stealth 3).
> OTOH, I'm increasingly in favour of extending the Holofield concept to
Also sounds good to me. We should ask the originator (Aaron, right?)
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D7336E@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
for
> torp.
Well, I only added Stealth-3 for handling things like Blind Fields or
Mimbari Jammers. With your system it would be Stealth-4, I guess (6mu
beam, 3 mu torp). So a simple answer - use your range bands, MASS is 5%
per level, COST is 10x MASS.
Mimbari Jammer is Stealth-4, MASS is 20%
Blind Field is Stealth-4 that affects the ship carrying it, and has a
(small) area of effect (say 1mu radius) - I'm not sure what a 'balanced'
cost is for this.
> A 1.25x range increase does not map well into my "effective weapon
Well, speed is better, so I agree.
> > With a MASS of 5% of hull mass per level gives a cost of 10 times
Ok.
> [quoted text omitted]
[snip and update]
Missile/Fighter 'Lock-On' ranges are as follows:
Stealth Level Cinematic Vector none 6 3
1 5 3
2 4 2
3 4 2
4 3 2
> These look good to me (except stealth 3).