Hello, In the past I've posted some idea on how to simulate Electronic
Warfare, etc. in Full Thrust. Here is my current proposal:
Sensors: Civilian sensors: 1D4 Basic Military sensor: 1D6 Enhanced Military
sensor: 1D8 Superior Military sensor: 1D10
To fire on a target, you must establish a lock on. You cannot engage the enemy
ship with a weapon without getting a lock on first. A successfull lock on
tells the scanner the speed of the enemy ship and direction of travel as well
as a fire control solution. The Scanner must make a scan roll greater than
that of the target in question to gain a lock on. If the scanners roll is two
times that of the defenders roll then he gets an estimate of the Mass of the
enemy ship rounded off to either upper or lower factor of ten(15 becomes 10 or
20, target owners choice). If the Scanners roll is three times that of the
defenders roll, the he knows the class type of ship being scanned, and must
during the next turn will know if the enemy ship is changing velocity in what
direction (course change(left or right), speed change(faster or slower))
before writing his ships orders. Four Times, he gains critical information
(Flag Ship,
etc.)
and knows the course and speed of the enemy ship before he writes his own
orders.
Counter Measures: Stealth: All Ships start of with 1D2 for the first 24 inches
and shifts up one die per 24 inches of distance between them. Ships shift down
one die type per 50 mass and up one die type for every 10 percent of mass
devoted to stealthing. ECM: Active Jamming systems get a die proportional to
their quality type: Civilian Jammer: 1D4 (FuzzBuster) Basic Military Jammer:
1D6 Enhanced Military Jammer: 1D8 Superior Military Jammer: 1D10
Active jamming creates a background that the scanner must beat in addition to
the targets die. Therefore, ECM systems are a "Secondary Die" for target
ships. A Scanner would have to beat both dice to get a lock on. However, while
active the enemy has an idea where the target is and will know a raid is on
its way in. Standard Missiles from More Thrust may be fired on jamming ships
using Home on Jam mode. Self Jamming systems work for the ship they are
operating on while barrage jammers protect ships within six inches of the
jamming ship. Active Jamming is cheaper than stealth but the enemy knows that
you are on your way in. Stealth ships have the advantage of not alerting their
foes.
Therefore, a Mass 50 special ops ships with:
Mass 50
Thrust: 6 15 Mass 30% Aerodynamic hull: 5 Mass 10% Stealth: 10 Mass 20% 2 C
Batteries: 2 Mass 4% 1 FC 1 Mass 2% 14 Mass of troops 16 Mass 32%
Would start at a 1D6 defensive die at close range out to 24 inches and shift
up one die for each 24 inches from there.
While a Cloaker would have:
Mass 50
Thrust 6: 15 Mass 30% Stealth: 25 Mass 50% 1 FC 1 Mass 2% Weapons 9 Mass 18%
Would start at a 1D12 defensive die at close range out to 24 inches.
Weasel Boats. For each Mass devoted to Weasel Systems a ship can "add" 20 Mass
to its apparent mass. When an opponent is able to ask the mass of the ship add
the actual mass to the "Weasel" mass and round up to the nearest value of ten.
If a scanner rolls three times of higher than the defensive die of a weasel
boat then the jig is up and the Weasel boat has to tell the actual
mass...
All Stealth and/or ECM systems, including Weasel systems cost 4 *
Mass.
Just to keep thing challenging for the stealth ships, all ships are spotted if
they end their move within 6 inches of and enemy vessel. "Thar she blows!"
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
how long does a lock last? do you need to reacquire each turn? in this
case, ships need to be able to make several lock-ons a turn or multiple
firecons are useless.
i think a rule like this makes for interesting play. here's a modified,
Sensors Lite (tm) version:
to fire at another ship, you need a lock-on. to make a lock-on, you need
to win an opposed die roll against the target. the die you roll is determined
by your sensors on the BasEnhSup scale, poss using d4 for civillians. the
target's die is determined by its stealth level, again on the BasEnhSup scale.
unstealthed ships, as seen in the standard designs,
get a d4 stealth die. you may make one lock-on attempt per firecon per
turn, all at once and before firing. lock-ons can be made at up to the
range of your sensors. only active sensors may be used to make lock-ons
(scope for extra rule here!). lock-ons last for the rest of the turn.
extra lock-ons on the same target have no effect (scope for extra rule
here!). the use of FCs for locking on is not connected to their use for
controlling fire (scope for extra rule here!).
eg, a cruiser (2 FC, basic sensors, no stealth) is fighting an identical
cruiser: it rolls twice to get a lock-on on the target. it rolls (on a
d6) a 4 and a 2. the target (on a d4) rolls a 3. he has locked on.
eg, a battleship (3 fc, bas sens, no stealth) is fighting two stealthed
destroyers (1 fc, bas sens, enh stealth). it directs 2 tries against one
target and one against the other. it rolls 1,5, target rolls 6: no
lock-on. it rolls 4, target rolls 2: lock-on.
firing at fighters, missiles and associated swarming irritants, a
lock-on
is not required. likewise, fighters need to lock-on to attack. they
should do, but i can't figure out how to do it. maybe their carrier needs a
lock-on?
i'm not sure how big or how expensive stealth systems should be. probably
half the cost of a cloak per level, max 3 levels (1->bas,2->enh,3->sup).
-- possible extra rules:
a firecon may only direct fire against the target which it locked onto. i
don't think this rule actually affects play in any way. however, it would mean
that to fire needles you need to lock on to a particular system
on the target, using the same procedure as general lock-on.
multiple lock-ons give better fire control. add one to each firing die
roll per extra lock-on. this may not be such a good rule, or it could
tie
in with the rule above and be a fire control rule, not a sensor rule -
mulitple fcs can be used to improve fire accuracy. rerolls still only on
natural six, AA battery blowback based on natural rolls.
lock-ons can be copied to other ships in the squadron. if one of your 3
cruisers gets a lock-on on the target, they all get it. if all three get
lock-ons, they all transfer and all of them get a +2 on the roll.
squadrons must be given the same movement orders and must have the same speed
and heading, and some proximity (6"? 12"?).
alternatively, a fleetcon action may copy a lock-on to one other ship,
or to all other ships. which? i just don't know.
if the ship uses its sensor fit (standard hull sensors or big active sensors)
for locking on in any given turn, it cannot use it to scan enemy ships.
passive sensors are still available.
-- end extra rules
> A
If the
> Scanners roll is three times that of the defenders roll, the he knows
this is addressed in the existiong sensor rules, isn't it? or are you
replacing them?
ok, your proposals on calculating stealth look ok. maybe use those instead of
my simple (and largely undefined) one. however, i'm not sure smaller ships are
actually harder to detect. not linearly, anyway. ecm die can
also go against lock-on: roll a secondary defence die as you do for ecm
with pds vs gms in ds2 (tla overload!). you'll need BasEnhSup ecm scale too.
Tom
<snip FMA-style EW rules>
Uh, how about we stick to D6 for Full Thrust and leave FMA to other games?
Suggested quickie EW rules:
You need firecon lock-on to fire.
Allocate firecons.
Normal sensors vs. normal target = automatic lock on (same as now).
Stealth/ECM systems ala the Minbari in EFSB get to roll vs each firecon
in an attempt to negate lock on.
Enhanced targeting sensors reduce the chances of success for the
Stealth/ECM.
> At 01:50 PM 11/3/98 +0000, Thomas Anderson wrote:
Once a lock on has occured, the target is tracked the entire time. You don't
scan the universe with your fire control system, its pencil thin. On the other
hand a Fire Control system is almost impossible to jam given the amount of
power concentrated on the target. So the rule is, once the target is locked,
he's locked...
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
> At 09:13 AM 11/3/98 -0600, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Jeff Lyon wrote:
too late! doesn't MT use FMA rules somewhere? i seem to remember that it does,
but i'm not quite sure. ok, the following part of the email is conditional.
#if (MT contains FMA)
see? told you so. this is just an extension of that. jon t opened the
floodgates, i'm just going through them.
#else
ah. oops. egg on face time. ok, scratch that. use BasEnhSup, but roll one
d6 for each and score as per beam dice, producing ranges 0-2, 0-4, 0-6.
rerolls used according to preference (basic sensors vs super-stealth
ship
get two consecutive rerolls - the stealther maintenance crew have
decided now would be a good time to dump the rubbish...).
#endif
anyway, the FMA system is great. Psychic Tom predicts that full thrust II will
use FMA.
pedantic note: we currently play either full thrust I second edition or full
thrust I second edition, fleet book revision. or, if we're mad, full thrust I
first edition. true ft2 does not yet exist (afaik).
> Suggested quickie EW rules:
that's what i was going to write, but my brain slipped. this system has
the edge of being backwardly compatible. in fact - _we are all using
this
system already!_. Jeff controls the horizontal... he controls the
vertical...
Tom
> At 07:53 AM 11/3/98 -0800, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
And making an opposed roll every turn for each firecon on the table ISN'T?
:)
> Suggested quickie EW rules:
Something like this?
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> At 07:53 AM 11/3/98 -0800, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
I seem to recall another discussion of ECM and Counter ECM here on the group
some time back.. either it was here or at my local store, one or
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
okay. can you have many lock-ons at once?
if you can, then basically, you need to lock onto a target once, and then
it's open season for the rest of the game. this is like a second-stage
version of the existing scanner rules, right? based on my Goldeneye tactics,
this would have my cruisers running around the board avoiding
combat but locking on to everything in sight :-).
Tom
> At 11:37 AM 11/3/1998 -0600, Jeff Lyon wrote:
NO! NO! No...
Fire Control directors are not used to track targets, only to direct fire
control systems. They are a pencil width beam, you don't use them to track
targets, only to direct weapon systems... Fire Control Directors and scanners
are two very different creatures. In some advanced systems such as AEgis they
are combined together, but even then the combined system does the two roles as
a function, not as a combined function.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Jeff Lyon wrote:
sorry about those. i'll work on them for at least 15 minutes next time. in
fact, a subtly modified form is now on the web:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ0938/gzg/firecon.html
> And making an opposed roll every turn for each firecon on the table
this is true. thinking about it, i realised that the whole locking-on
business is built into (phil pournelle's system) the sensor rules or (my
system) the weapons fire rules, so in either case it's largely redundant.
otoh, a 3000 point fleet (to use a recently posted example) with, iirc, 4 cap
ships, 3 cruisers and 6 escorts only has 24 firecons. the rolling of firing
dice, and the whole movement process, is going to take much longer.
> :)
;-)
> >I think you get a better result using the shifted dice.
hang on; if we add any modifications, it's not Full Thrust any more. none the
less, we do, and it's still mostly full thrust.
Tom
> At 11:08 AM 11/3/98 -0800, Phil wrote:
Jeez, dude! Take a valium...
> Fire Control directors are not used to track targets, only to
Okay, then...so if I understand your point, then a radar beam from a fire
control director is (very roughly) analogous to painting a target with a
laser.
I assume that this is what "locking on" means. Once the targeting beam in on,
it tracks the target as it moves.
It can only be used once you know where to point it, hence the need for both
scanners and ECM or stealth. Once you do know where to point it, the
firecon is strong enough to burn through ECM/Sleath.
This would be where you roll for success. If I'm understanding you correctly,
then it wouldn't be necessary to roll every turn to lock on; just the once. If
this is correct, then the roll for success should be done by the firing ship.
So ECM/Slealth alone won't shrug it off once it's locked on. What
would?
An interposing asteroid? Flying through nebulae/dust clouds/smog? A
decoy deployed between the target and firing ship? Having a target maneuver
into your aft quarter? Bridge hit? Switching targets? Boneheaded Alien PSB
tech? Cloaking?
> Fire Control Directors and scanners are two very different
Let's assume for the sake of argument that what you describe as an advanced
system today is the standard in 200+ years. Would it be appropriate to
treat a FT ship with three firecons as having three independent systems which
have both capabilities and thus three times as many opportunities to
successfully perform the scan function and then the targeting function follows
automatically?
> At 02:19 PM 11/3/98 -0600, jeff lyon wrote:
Emphasis was needed. Hey, at least I got your attention;) Besides, it is what
I do for a living...
> Fire Control directors are not used to track targets, only to
Correct.
> I assume that this is what "locking on" means. Once the targeting beam
When the sensor gets a good track on you, then the FC system has you locked in
and it is almost impossible to break it off.
> It can only be used once you know where to point it, hence the need for
Exaclty.
> This would be where you roll for success. If I'm understanding you
Not firing ship, scanning ship. A ship with one FC may only fire at one ship
at a time but may have mutliple tracks simultaneously.
> So ECM/Slealth alone won't shrug it off once it's locked on. What
These are all potential event to do that. Most ECM today is not to break a
ship's tracking methods but to spoof a self seeking missile to either track
the wrong target (before lock on has occured) or make it think that the new
bloom is the original target.
> Fire Control Directors and scanners are two very different
I would leave the two applications seperate. Space has a much larger volume
than what we deal with today and the requirement to purchase the two different
systems represents the costs and mass involved to make the trade off between
time to detection and the number of targets I can fire at in one turn.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> Jeff Lyon wrote:
No. Nor does the FB. MT uses basic, enhanced and superior sensors, but there's
no FMA mechanics (opposed die rolls, die type shifts etc)
involved - just D6.rolls with or without modifiers.
> anyway, the FMA system is great.
FMA target lock-on procedures take an awful lot of time even in small
engagments. The biggest strength of Full Thrust is that large engagments can
be fought out in a reasonable amount of time (less than a single
evening) - using FMA targetting reduces this strength a huge lot.
This is the reason I prefer Epic 40K for large ground battles (50-150
vehicles per side plus infantry; we don't go bigger because we don't have
enough models...) rather than DSII - E40K plays swiftly. For smaller
battles, I prefer DSII - I like the level of detail it provides - but it
is too slow to use for large battles. DSII is, of course, an FMA system.
> Psychic Tom predicts that full thrust II will use FMA.
Full Thrust II was published in 1992 (check the front cover of your rulebook).
It completely lacks any trace of FMA mechanics. I have strong
indications that Jon T. thinks of it as the "true FT2" :-/
The FB is "FT2.5" - halfway to FT3.
Regards,
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
[snip]>>
> too late! doesn't MT use FMA rules somewhere?
[snip]
> Psychic Tom predicts that full thrust II will use FMA.
Don't use the predictive powers to pick your lottery numbers...:) I've stated
on this list before, that FT will NOT be moving to the FMA system, in FT 3rd
edition or any other subsequent version. FT will remain a strictly d6 based
system.
There is always the possibility that we MAY do an FMA-system-based
starship
and/or starfighter game at sometime in the future, but it would be a
completely new game - NOT any version of FT.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
would you actually need a director for a beam weapon? surely if you know your
relative positions accurately, from your tracking data, you can do some vector
maths and figure out where to point your beam.
furthermore, if combat occurs at above lightsecond ranges, your direction data
will always be out of date, and so you will have to raster the target area
anyway; precision leaves the equation.
Tom
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
okay, my bad.
> > anyway, the FMA system is great.
maybe. i have no hard data here, but i should think it would add relatively
little time compared to the time you already need for movement and rolling all
your attack dice. playtesting needed.
> The biggest strength of Full Thrust is that large engagments
absolutely. this is indeed one of FTs best points...
> This is the reason I prefer Epic 40K for large ground battles
... and DSs weak points. it's still not too bad, but die roll and chit pull
together take a while.
> > Psychic Tom predicts that full thrust II will use FMA.
that rulebook says "Full Thrust" in big letters at the top, and "Second
Edition" in smaller letters at the bottom. it's Full Thust (implicitly version
1) second edition: FT1.1. the current dirtside is dirtside 2, and when you
look at the difference between 1 and 2 you'll see why; ft1.1 is very like
ft1.0, with a lot of improvements, but no truly major changes.
> The FB is "FT2.5" - halfway to FT3.
the fleet book is a big change - it is either FT1.5 or FT2.0 beta 1.
this is all true de jure; as you say, ft1.1 is de facto full thrust 2. anyway,
this is all semantics and serves no real use.
i am wondering about how an FMA FT (even if it's an
australopithecus-like
branch from the main chain of development) would work; what if the main
effort in firing was locking you firecon on - and there was more
diversity of firecons, more interplay of firecon and sensor, more importance
for ecm
and stealth etc - using an fma opposed roll, after which the actual
firing
was handled in a super-simplified way? the point being that once you
lock
on with fcs, hits are automatic - that is what fcs is for. you'd either
have to reacquire each turn or there would be a way for the target to
break the lock. i'm not sure how you'd tie in p-torps and missiles to
all this; missiles could, to some extent, use the DS2 GMS rules when they make
their attack run. p-torps might use the GMS rules straight. it would
have different mechanics and a very different feel to FT1.1, but it might be
interesting. any ideas? i'm not proposing that FT should use FMA - i
just wonder what the alternatives are.
my $20,000 (hey, it's inflation), Tom
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> furthermore, if combat occurs at above lightsecond ranges, your
What about target prediction? Seems to me that will be the moduis operandi for
engagements out past one LS.
> Tom wrote:
I saved a post from 12/6/96 from this list where someone had done this
type of thing and I think there were a few later messages on some playtesting
of it.
Check the list archives or let me know and I can forward you a copy.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:
curses! foiled again! i was right about Apple buying NeXT, though. almost.
i think the way FT works now is brilliant - it is quicker than it would
be with FMA, and does everything it needs to do very well. of course, i don't
know why i'm telling you this, you know that...
Tom
I've been creating some roughly 25mm sci-fi vehicles for Stargrunt and
2300 AD by kit bashing Hot Wheels, friction toys and model kits. We all know
how few and far between white metal vehicles in that scale are (not to mention
how d****d expensive they are). A 99 cent (US) friction toy tank has been
changed into a hover fighting vehicel. What I did roughly was remove the
tracks and build up the sides with cardstock, put plastic hosing from a
ventilator hose (my wife is an Registered Nurse and I can scrounge all sorts
of things from unused medical disposable gear), The stubby little gun was not
to intimidating, so I extended the barrel with nested different diameter soda
straws to provide the gun tube and cooling
sleeve. An MG from the ROCO Mini-tanks line provides the commander with
a gun, two boxy missile launchers made from polymer clay provide missile or
decoy launchers and a rubber stopper from an injectable med bottle provides a
drum shaped phased array targeting system. Looks sharp! I have three of them
to provide a hover tank platoon. Hot Wheels toys makes a wierd six wheeled
vehicle with a radar dish. I removed the dish built up the sides of the
vehicle with card stock, provided a flat deck, cut card stock and folded it to
provide egress doors for the infantry squad, added a round coupola and gun
mount for the vehicle commander
and I have a nifty six-wheel APC (three of them now) From a Zodiac style
boat in that rough scale I created a larger Hover APC for the armored squad of
battle suits, another six wheel vehicle is a RAM arty SP guise and yet another
with a multi-barrel gun mount provides AAA and CFS for the company. A
couple
dozen infantry and six battle suit infantry and I have a well-rounded
StarGruntII company ready for the table.
Scott
> At 12:43 PM 11/4/1998 +0000, Thomas Anderson wrote:
You still need to get a fire control solution on the target before you waste
ordnance or energy on it. The Fire Control system gets you a highly accurate
idea of his course and speed. Even if we are assuming the light seconds
distance issue, you would have greater accuracy (smaller error area to rastor)
with the FC system then whithout. Again space is very big and a FC sensor is
pencil thin. Better to find the target and do a complete Detect to Engage
sequence.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
> >> too late! doesn't MT use FMA rules somewhere?
Jon-GZG warbled:
> I've stated on this list before, that FT will NOT be moving to the FMA
Good. I play FT because it's quick and easy. I don't play DS2, because it
isn't. (Steve Jackson's "GEV", with some extra units, is about the level I'm
looking for, although I may have to do some rules bashing to get the flavor
right).
I do want a sensor system, as I feel that that's likely to be one of the most
important parts of space combat. I also want it to be something I can put on a
3x5 card and not have to refer back to the rulebook to figure it out.
(Chorus: "so what's *your* bright idea?"--okay, I'm working on it.
Filing serial numbers off takes a while).
As just about everyone else has had a go here are some ideas of mine
Electronic Warfare Lite
After orders are written there is an EW phase.
Sensors: Sensors can work in Passive mode or Active. Passive sensors have a
range of 60" and active of 48". Passive sensors can detect ships using their
sensors and give the type of sensor at 72".
Sensor type Die Basic 1D6 Enhanced 2D6 Superior 3D6
Sensors "hit" as for standard beams. A sensor may "fire" once for each fire
control. Each "hit" provides the following info
Hits Passive Active 1 mass allows firing lock
2 +thrust rating +accel/deccel+rewrite orders for
"firing" ship
3 +number fire cons +turn direction
ECM: Ecm systems come in 3 levels and work in the same way as screens.
Basic acts as level 1 screen for sensor "hits" Enhanced acts as level 2 screen
Superior acts as level 3 screen (that dreaded bug bear of FT)
Weasel systems: These always give false infomation until destroyed by
threshold tests.
Don't have mass or costs worked out yet but any thoughts are welcome.
> At 07:01 PM 11/4/98 -0500, laserlight wrote:
Bravo! Well said!
I believe I'd have to agree with you on all of the above points.
GEV was a great board game, but I'm not quite sure if the Ogre Minis rules
quite capture the "feel" of it, though. It's also in need of a vehicle design
system.
So what ever happened regarding that suggestion to make DS1 freely available?
Watch a MkV (big,big, very big,)roll across the field, turning your tanks into
radioactive dust is scary and accurate to the system, IMHO.
Rick
> ---Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
[snipped good, simple sensor rules]
I actually like this idea of "hits" a little bit more than my previous idea of
a sensor point pool simply because it's more simple.
I think that I may have to go back and revise my ideas to make them more
simple. <<gears churning - smoke pouring from ears>> I think I've hurt
myself ;-)
laserlight <laserlight@mci2000.com> on 11/04/98 02:01:25 PM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: Full Thrust : Electronic Warfare
> >> too late! doesn't MT use FMA rules somewhere?
Jon-GZG warbled:
> I've stated on this list before, that FT will NOT be moving to the FMA
Good. I play FT because it's quick and easy. I don't play DS2, because it
isn't. (Steve Jackson's "GEV", with some extra units, is about the level I'm
looking for, although I may have to do some rules bashing to get the flavor
right).
I do want a sensor system, as I feel that that's likely to be one of the most
important parts of space combat. I also want it to be something I can put on a
3x5 card and not have to refer back to the rulebook to figure it out.
(Chorus: "so what's *your* bright idea?"--okay, I'm working on it.
Filing serial numbers off takes a while).