[GZG] Re: RE: Stealth, ECM and FCS suggestion (long)

> From: J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>

> - For material based stealth, like I have with the New Israelis I do

> "When a ship takes threshold checks, roll for EACH hexagon as for any

I guess I blanked on that last sentence. Automatic loss of stealth should
still be marginally less expensive than thresholdable stealth, but that's
likely in the noise at FT's granularity.

> The problem with tieing stealth to hull rows is twofold. First, we

I think your higher levels are reasonable reflections of extrmeme
stealth/ECM/partial cloaking PSBs. Tying Stealth 1 and 2 to varying
hull rows was easy enough, so higher levels could be done the same way. Either
or. There is definitely an appeal to the chance of
blowing all stealth at Thresh-1, or keeping full stealth through
Thresh-3.

> Finally, I tied the cost of Stealth to the TMF factor in the

I tried a TMF factor costing as well, and liked the hull/armor
better. Just personal taste, I think. Tying it to Hull/Armor raises
the temptation of going more fragile to keep costs down. Even so, Stealth 2
makes most ships of a given class cost about as much as a ship of the next
class larger. For example, the NI Stealth CE costs a bit more than the
"standard" Hull CH. WDA stealth (or at least NI versions of it) also have the
passive firecon restrictions and maximum (24 MU) ranges for weapons without
violating stealth. These would, could arguably be tightened further for higher
stealth levels.

> - I don't like the idea of enhanced FCS causing other systems to be

I thought it needlessly complicated ship costing. I could well be wrong
though, since the only way I see to do it without adding different
complications (which is what my%weapon mass idea would have done)
would simply be to make enhanced/superior FCS cost 15/30 points fixed
or some such. Fixed (high) cost has an appeal in that it would be a fairly
high cost impact for small ships, and a smaller relative enhancement for
larger ships.
> [quoted text omitted]

> - There needs to be an upper range limit band on some weapons..

OK

> I am not sure that "Jamming" as you describe is different than a more

That assumes a FoG of War at the game table that keeps bogeys (or "false
signature" minis in play). Which is fine as far as it goes. I'm more
interested in ships being able to shield other ships partially or completely
from incoming fire.

> As for protecting ships "deeper in the formation", we can lift a

Something like that, yes, but 1 MU is very tight.

> Slightly more complex and powerful would be to give a varying level of

I like this better. ALternatively, you could simplify, split the
difference and make the ECm field +XMU range to 2 or 3 MU radius
around the ship, period.

> Area Effect ECM systems, with larger radii would then be more MASS

'Natch

> --- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> > From: J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>

I just meant to point out that, like the WDA Stealth Hull, my proposal was not
repairable during the game.

The threshold roll vs. automatic loss is a matter of preference, but there are
factors to consider related to both the number of levels in my system (all FB1
and FB2 ships have level 3: Standard) and what is
the best pattern/scheme to distribute levels amongst 3-row and 5-row
ships, as well as how to distribute Superior (level 5) to 4-row ships.
E.g. would a 3-row Superior Stealth (Level 5) ship have Stealth
Hexagons on 1,1,2,3,3 or 1,1,2,2,3? In either case, under the Automatic loss
system, Superior is reduced to Standard Stealth (Lvl 3), losing all stealth
bonuses, after the first threshold, while under the
3-level WDA system, it gets to spend a threshold row at Enhanced (WDA
lvl 2).

> >> - I don't like the idea of enhanced FCS causing other systems to

> would be a fairly high cost impact for small ships, and a smaller

I looked at it from this perspective: Having Enhanced or Superior FCS increase
the effective RBs is similar to having "Extended Range" or "Long Range"
weapons. When such weapons are under Beta consideration, such as the Extended
Range PTL and the UNSC Extended Range Heavy Beam Cannon, there is a massive
increase in MASS, and proportional increase
in PV.  Taking the ER_PTL as an example, 50% RB = x2 MASS/PV.  A 3-arc
ER-PTL is 18 PV more than a 3-arc standrd PTL.  The increased range for
Enhanced FCS is less (+33%), but there is no increase in MASS per
weapon. At that rate, a 15 PV Enhanced FCS does not even cover the
points increase for a single PTL (or B3) when compared to an ER-PTL
with a Standard FCS, let alone a capital ship with 60 or 70 MASS of weapons.
Multiplying the Points Per MASS of the weapons is, I think the simplest to
getting a suitable number scaled over all sizes of ships. For all I know, the
multipliers that I suggest might even be low. (care to comment Oerjan?)

> I'm more interested in ships being able to shield other ships

<snip>

> I like this better. ALternatively, you could simplify, split the

I understand the point of view, and it is reasonable for those who figure that
MUs are fairly small, e.g. 10's or 100's of km rather than 1000's or 10's of
1000's. If a terrestrial planet is represented by a table edge, then your
radius is OK, but if a terrestrial planet is a
6-12 mu diameter object on the table, then 3 MU ECM range is much too
large. It happens that I think in terms of "MUs are 1000's of km" rather than
"MUs are 100's of km". At that scale, a 3 MU radius (6 MU diameter) can cover
an entire planet or small moon.

J