I finally had a chance to look at this. It has a nice next step above the
ideas I've been using.
A couple comments:
- FCS is essentially a proxy for ECCM. Enhanced and Superior sensors
should also play in to this, since those systems are already in the
game (At least FT/MT)
- For material based stealth, like I have with the New Israelis I do
like the mechanic of _automatic_ loss with damage. Stealth like that
should be somewhat cheaper than thresholdable stealth that can be repaired.
- I don't like the idea of enhanced FCS causing other systems to be
more expensive. Perhaps the cost of the FCS needs to be some factor of%weapon
mass of the ship.
- There needs to be an upper range limit band on some weapons.
Assuming that a standard FCS in FB1 can target ships at 48 mu (and no enhanced
FCS is required to fire heavier beams), it could be argued that 12 mu is the
actual effective maximum range of a B1 as far as the capability to deliver
damage to a target. Enhancing FCS might
give a +1 to hit _within_ range bands, or maybe ekeing another mu or
two out of maximum range, but I don't think making a B1 with 20 mu range just
because of FCS feels right.
Then there's Jamming. What would be very cool is to have a system
capable of protecting ships _behind_ or within an area of effect of a
jammer. The jamming ship itself can work one of several ways - it can
be a Beacon - drawing enemy targeting to itself (i.e. making hte
jammer easier to target), or it can be a source of major interference and
benefit from its own jamming. Ships within or behind the area of effect
(determined by center to center LOS through the jamming area
are protected by the Jammer's field. This would be a _huge_ new
tactical variation for FT, and actually allow fleet formations to interpose
units and protect key elements (say of a convoy, or damaged ships, or VIPs, or
flagships, etc...). Jammer area of effect would be
probably 1-3 mu radius, with cost/mass going up quickly - something
like 2/6/18 mass.
> --- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> I finally had a chance to look at this. It has a nice next step above
We use sensors as "is anybody out there?" kind of thing, with FCS representing
everything needed to change that detection into a firing solution. Air analogy
being search radar and detectors vs. targeting radar or guidance system lock,
naval analogy being submarine sonar vs. target plotting. The sensors in both
cases can be used in either active or passive modes.
The advantages/liabilities of differing tech level Sensors in our games
come in as the information that a player gets as to the size and emissions of
a target (modified by its Stealth and ECM). Things like determiing what size
Target #1 is, etc. I thought that this is beyond
the scope of stealth/ecm. (and it is still in a state of flux for us)
> - For material based stealth, like I have with the New Israelis I do
Read the "stealth" section in my original post again. (** for emphasis
now):
"When a ship takes threshold checks, roll for EACH hexagon as for any other
system. The number surviving is the remaining level of stealth. Stealth
**cannot** be repaired during the course of a game."
The problem with tieing stealth to hull rows is twofold. First, we
wanted more than 4 levels above "none". Second, it seems that 3-row
and 5-row designs will be official soon, and you have to allow for
stealth in these designs. Divorcing stealth from the hull rows, solves both of
these.
Additionally, the system I proposed allows a ship to loose more than 1 level
of stealth to a single threshold; even a superior stealth ship can loose all 5
levels if the rolls are unlucky. Conversely, A ship might survive a couple
threasholds with full stealth, then loose it all at once later.
Finally, I tied the cost of Stealth to the TMF factor in the construction
process, whereas the WDA version it is tied only to HULL and ABLATIVE ARMOR.
(I think the WDF values are low).
> - I don't like the idea of enhanced FCS causing other systems to be
If the FCS enhances the RBs of all direct fire weapons, I don't see how you
can point cost it without effectively increasing the cost of all direct fire
weapons in proportion, but I would like to see an example of what you mean.
On the other hand, if various levels of FCS have a different effect than what
I propose, then <shrug>
> - There needs to be an upper range limit band on some weapons.
Depends on how you look at it. Since FT is generic, you can PSB it the other
way too, e.g.: Enhanced FCS puts more of the pulses of the B1 on target,
allowing damage to be caused at longer ranges, or allows the continuous beam
to dwell more on the target at longer ranges, or allows the dispersed array to
focus on a single point at longer ranges, etc.
> Then there's Jamming. What would be very cool is to have a system
I am not sure that "Jamming" as you describe is different than a more detailed
("Advanced Option Rules") use of ECM systems. This would include rules where a
ship could try to use its ECM to appear as a larger or smaller ship (used alot
in Weber's HH), but I see that as allowing the ECM to affect the information
given by the other ship's sensors, rather than its FCS.
As for protecting ships "deeper in the formation", we can lift a simple idea
from B5 Fleet Action to apply to the base platform of the ECM rules I posted:
1) For each enemy ship within 1 mu of the line of fire with an active ECM
system of Quality equal to or greater than the Quality of the
firing ship's FCS, increase the effective range to the target by 1 mu +
1 additional MU for each level the ECm has above the FCS. e.g. a Standard FCS
fires on an enemy ship. there are 3 other enemy ships within 1 mu of the line
of fire; 1 dmage and operating at level 2(basic), one operating at level 3
(standard), and one operating at
level 4 (enhanced). Add +0 MU for the Basic system (as this is less
tha the FCS Quality), +1 MU for the Standard system, and +2 MU for the
Enhanced system, totaling +3 MU.
2) For each enemy ship within 1 mu of the Target with an active ECM system of
Quality equal to or greater than the Quality of the firing
ship's FCS, increase the effective range to the target by 1 mu + 1
additional MU for each level the ECm has above the FCS. This is cumulative
with those in 1) above, but each system is counted only once.
Slightly more complex and powerful would be to give a varying level of
protection for various levels, e.g. Superior ECM vs Standard FCS (or Enhanced
ECM vs. Basic FCS):
+3 MU range at 1 MU radius
+2 MU range at 2 MU radius
+1 MU range at 3 MU radius
Enhanced ECM vs Standard FCS (or Standard ECM vs Basic FCS):
+2 MU range at 1 MU radius
+1 MU range at 2 MU radius
etc.
Area Effect ECM systems, with larger radii would then be more MASS above the
base value.
J
> Then there's Jamming. What would be very cool is to have a system
I'd want an expendable jammer missile of some sort.
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> I'd want an expendable jammer missile of some sort.
I'm sure you would.
:-)
---
I love humanity; it's people I don't like. -- Charles Schulz
I said:
> > I'd want an expendable jammer missile of some sort.
Noam muttered:
> I'm sure you would.
Inshallah. But I'm thinking of something which could be used as
sensor-terrain, so to speak--place it where you want it and it stays
functional for at least a couple of turns. That would give Your
opponent more incentive to split up, I think-- that way he'd be more
likely to have some of his lines of sight not obscured by jamming.