Muttering to myself on a long drive, I came up with things to consider when
the Long Awaited But Well Worth It FT Sensor Rules arrive:
1. Making a fighter-sized "AWACS equivalent" will tend to displace
scout ships. I would therefore say that scout ships have the room for higher
power search radars and better processing ability, plus the endurance to
loiter indefinitely, which a fighter would not have. 2. Remote sensor devices
should include Passive Sensor Buoys, which could be stationary or set on an
unalterable trajectory; Sensor Drones which would operate like Buoys except
for being maneuverable; and Active Drones, which would provide a burst of
search radar (rather like a photographic flash off to one side); either put a
Sensor Drone nearby to catch the signal, or use it as a decoy. 3. Stealth
capability is included in standard ship's package; Enhanced or Superior
Stealth will cost perhaps as Streamlining and will reduce mass signature to
50% and 25% respectively (imagine his look when his sensors finally get a good
read on what he thought was a Mass 50 escort and realizes it's a Mass 200
SDN). Stealth Fighters, Stealth Mines and Stealth Missiles will also need to
be considered. Absolutely no Stealth Planets.
The AWAC line of thought sparked another idea: Variable Size Fighters. Some
Noble soul wrote a page on Modular fighters with their various system costs.
Could such a person work out costs for 1.5 Size Fighters (Really Heavy Attack
Craft, or Genuinely Long Range Recon Craft)?
Muttering to myself on a long drive, I came up with things to consider when
the Long Awaited But Well Worth It FT Sensor Rules arrive:
1. Making a fighter-sized "AWACS equivalent" will tend to displace
scout ships. I would therefore say that scout ships have the room for higher
power search radars and better processing ability, plus the endurance to
loiter indefinitely, which a fighter would not have. 2. Remote sensor devices
should include Passive Sensor Buoys, which could be stationary or set on an
unalterable trajectory; Sensor Drones which would operate like Buoys except
for being maneuverable; and Active Drones, which would provide a burst of
search radar (rather like a photographic flash off to one side); either put a
Sensor Drone nearby to catch the signal, or use it as a decoy. 3. Stealth
capability is included in standard ship's package; Enhanced or Superior
Stealth will cost perhaps as Streamlining and will reduce mass signature to
50% and 25% respectively (imagine his look when his sensors finally get a good
read on what he thought was a Mass 50 escort and realizes it's a Mass 200
SDN). Stealth Fighters, Stealth Mines and Stealth Missiles will also need to
be considered. Absolutely no Stealth Planets.
The AWAC line of thought sparked another idea: Variable Size Fighters. Some
Noble soul wrote a page on Modular fighters with their various system costs.
Could such a person work out costs for 1.5 Size Fighters (Really Heavy Attack
Craft, or Genuinely Long Range Recon Craft)?
laserlight spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> 3. Stealth capability is included in standard ship's package;
Enhanced or
> Superior Stealth will cost perhaps as Streamlining and will reduce
One point to consider. I consider stealth being the ability to not be seen.
Although what you say is a big plus from a perspective of tactics (is that a
scout or DN) it lacks a lot from a point of view of strategy (in either case,
they know their is something out there and the bubble might be about to go
up). I think if you establish a range for Sensors (the factor below being
multiplied by whatever one thinks a good sensor range is)
Primitive 0.5 Basic 0.75 Regular 1.00 Enhanced 1.25 Superior 1.50 Advanced 2.0
(alien tech?)
Then stealth could be considered a multiplier on this.
No Stealth (Civilians, Old Tech) 1.00 Basic Stealth (Low End Military, Old Hi
Tech Military) 0.9
Regular Stealth (Normal Military) 0.75
Enhanced Stealth (Hi End Military) 0.50 Superior Stealth 0.25 Advanced Stealth
(Alien Tech) 0.10
For example, the UN Military Scout (fresh off the line) with Superior Sensors
(modifier 1.50) searching for the lost Planetary Defense Vessel (Basic
Stealth, powered down due to equipment failure, 1.9 range modifier) would at
1.35 * the distance the same Scout would detect a ship with Superior Stealth.
A Normal Destroyer with Regular Sensors, hunting for a Cruiser hiding under
Enhanced Stealth would detect it at 1.0 * 0.5 = 0.5 times normal detection
range. This might just be too close for the faster destroyer to escape the
cruisers guns and missiles, and it might be inside the jamming envelope!
As a last example, the UN Scout searching for the Evil and Cunning Sa'vas'ku
Stealth Scout (with an Advanced Stealth package, a 0.5 modifier) would only
pick up the ship at 1.5 * 0.1 = 0.15 times the normal detection range. Whereas
the Normal Military Scout with Enhanced Sensors would only pick it up at 1.25
* 0.1 = 0.125 times the normal detection range.
Just an idea. It has some math involved, but the basic idea of establishing a
concept of detection ranges (maybe like in SFB you gain different info at
different ranges) then modifying these ranges for sensor and stealth quality
would give the best feel. A sensor net that should catch an uncloaked
battleship will probably let cloaked scouts slip through.....
Tom.
laserlight spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> The AWAC line of thought sparked another idea: Variable Size Fighters.
> Some Noble soul wrote a page on Modular fighters with their various
I assume you mean fractional size fighters rather than variable size
fighters....
"Captain! We have a squadron of Tomahawk attack fighters inbound....
No...wait....they're changing....changing....reforming.....now they're Mantis
Class Heavy Torpedo Fighters....PDS engaging....now they are changing again to
avoid the PDS....now they are ultra
lights....."
(Grin).
> One point to consider. I consider stealth being the ability to not be
Right, but I was thinking that a lower "visible mass" would also influence
whether the thing was detected at all. And I forgot to mention Anti Radiation
Missiles, which would home on active sensors. I am trying to work out a method
for two players (ie no referee) to detect, or fail to detect, each other's
ships. "Phantom bogey" markers might solve most of it, but what happens when
your "sensor mirage" detects his battlegroup? I suppose the way to do it is
compare signatures, and whichever group has the largest signature tries to
detect the smaller, but I haven't worked out the combinations yet.
> Muttering to myself on a long drive, I came up with things to consider
***
One thought I had on this was to make Recon Fighters a remote extension
(client) for the Enhanced or Superior sensors on another ship (Server). They
can't do anything by themselves, hence there is still a place for
scout ships - Here's the text (updated) of something I sent to someone
who contacted me directly (he saw my rules on modular fighters on Mark's page)
Fighter based Enhanced sensors (Eff 2) would not do anything by themselves,
but rather slave themselves to another ship (server) in the fleet that has
enhanced (or better) sensors, and allow that ship to benefit by calculating
the range to a target measuring from the fighter group (client), instead of
the ship. If the main ship loses it's sensors, the fighters give no further
benefit unless it can then link to another ship with enhanced sensors. Another
benefit, the Server with the sensors may be located within an ECM field, while
the recon fighter is without. In this case the server may make use of it's
sensors without being blinded by friendly ECM (Although the opponent in this
case will know that enchanced sensors are in
use.)
Fighters with enhanced or superior sensors (Recon Fighters) must be within
half the positive detection range of uplink ship's sensors in order to
communicate their sensor readings.
ECM: (Wild-weasel?)
In my opinion, ECM is a system that would seem rather difficult to cram on a
fighter, but here's a thought (I haven't played with ECM, so bear with me).
Similar to recon fighters, the Wild weasel ECM suite allows the fighter to
serve as a projection to the Area effect ECM on another ship.
I
would basically allow the fighter to extend the existing ECM field to any ship
within 6" of the fighter, as long as the fighter in no more that 12" from a
friendly ship mounting an Area effect ECM (i.e. the fighter is within the AECM
field itself)
As an alternative, the fighter could be considered to mount normal ECM for
itself. You may with the fighter to use it's ECM rig in either configuration.
i.e.: 1) If operating independantly, may mask itself.
2) If operating in conjunction with area-effect ECM, the fighter extends
the area of effect.
For kicks, make the active use of either of these systems expend fighter
endurance - so you have limited duration missions, and to gain the most
benefit of these systems you need to rotate in fresh fighters.
For Plain FTII or FB construction, I would cost either of these fighters
the same as Heavy (30 per squadron) - they have no anti-ship weapon and
limited dogfighting (kill 1 enemy on roll of 6). For my modular fighter rules,
Either system is Eff 2, cost 4.
***
> 2. Remote sensor devices should include Passive Sensor Buoys, which
***
Noble soul? is that a pun? Anyway - here's a thought: (note to readers,
-
this portion is based on my Modular Fighter Construction rules, so if you want
to know what I'm talking about, go read 'em on Marks page)
Normal fighters are designed around an efficiency of 4 - some designs
push that to 5. Large Fighters are built around a different Frame Type: and
double the cost of propulsion systems.
Large Frame Cost 2 Eff 1 Damaged as normal (cost fighter
at
Eff-2)
Large,Heavy Frame Cost 4 Eff 2 Damaged as Lvl-1 screens (Cost
fighter at Eff-2)
so a standard Recon fighter with limited Anti-Fighter ability is Eff 4,
cost 5 each (30 pts per squadron)
while a Large, Heavy Long range Recon fighter with Standard Anti-Fighter
ability is Eff 7 (5 for costs) and costs 15 each - (60 per squadron - as
you can only fit 4) Expensive, but doable. If using the FB, they can stay out
and perform their mission for 9 turns! Note that Large fighters, while fewer
per squadron will probably cost much more because a) they have thier
propulsion system cost doubled and b) they can cram more capabilities in the
frame. Maybe with the fleet book I need to look at Armored Fighters?
So there you go. Comments? Flames?