From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:43:59 -0700
Subject: FT3 Sensor Rules [Long]
From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:43:59 -0700
Subject: FT3 Sensor Rules [Long]
From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:47:30 -0500
Subject: Re: FT3 Sensor Rules [Long]
Nice rules Schoon. A couple of suggestions: What about "silent runnng" - running with engines at lower power (lower effective thrust, lower effective emissions) and weapons and firecons shut down - zero emissions? Shouldn't this be feasible? Especially for intelligence gathering ships such as scouts etc (what if you just drift in with everything but life support and minimal CPU running - you are an asteroid - hard to detect much about you until people get in visual range)? And meanwhile passive sensors can be running, gaining system/ship data. And this more accurately simulates sub warfare (trying to find the enemy when he's running quietly). What about some form of obnoxious ECM decoy that 'combined with silent running' could fool hostile weapons systems? Or a sensor bomb that temprarily blinds enemy vessels? Or even worse, might burn out sensitive sensors! just some ideas. Tom.
From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 11:12:58 -0700
Subject: Re: FT3 Sensor Rules [Long]
> Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote: [snip] > What about "silent runnng" - running with engines at lower power Sure, although there's almost no such thing as Zero emissions (I know what you mean, though). You could represent this, and also stealth systems by a modifier reducing the LoI for the ship so operating/equiped. For example, (and I'm pulling this right out of thin air) a silent running ship might have a LoI-2 modifier, and a special stealth ship might have a LoI-3 (or more) modifier. This makes them harder to spot, and especially if they have an electronics suite to further lower the LoI, you could get a really interesting game of cat and mouse as the searcher gets LoI0, firmly establishing that something is out there, but doesn't know exactly where. > And this more accurately simulates sub warfare (trying to find the Yup. > What about some form of obnoxious ECM decoy that 'combined with I intentionally made the rules so they didn't affect weapons fire to avoid the SFB style ECM /ECCM escalation. I figure once they figure out pretty well where you are and get a good picture of your emissions, that's enough for weapons targeting. However, decoys of that variety might be more effective at deceiving the enemy about how many ships you have. A decoy might allow an admiral to report more ships at LoI0 than he really has, or have a second formation that the enemy must then react to. As for a sensor bomb or sensor blinding, I'm dubious of the feasibilty of such a thing. It would have to be delivered close to the sensors, and I suspect that "future" sensors would have cutouts to protect against overloads, and most of their mechanisms would be vulnerable only to weapons fire. Which is not to say that if you really want to have such a thing in your universe, that you can't go right ahead and do it! Thanx for the comments,
From: <Mekole@a...>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:55:09 EDT
Subject: Re: FT3 Sensor Rules [Long]
Hmmm, why not just make a modified version of a cloaking field that acts as a mask of the electronic signature to sensor scans. This way he could be operating at silent running with full speed and sensors, but no weapons or fire con active. You might even go so far as to say that once he goes to an active sensor ping on enemy vessels, he's detected. Due to its highly specialized nature, it would cost more than a cloak, but might weigh less in mass. Still there is the problem of all that expelled exhaust.... Just my $.02 Gil