Morale/commander movement:
Here's some ideas to correct "static commander syndrome": 1) Transfers from
outside LoS of the
commander are at +1 difficulty
2) Rally attempts outside of 6" are at +2
difficulty 3) Surprise enemy squad (lesson: you aren't safe by yourself even
in the "cleared" woods). 4) SNIPER! 5) Run a con scenario and let the players
of the various squads know that their survival is part of the victory
conditions and then you'll find them perhaps more willing to pretend they
didn't get a transmission or whatever...;)
ESM in FT (well, in real world, but extended): I understand it is a difficult
thing to execute real life analysis of ESM data for several reasons relating
to wash from your own radar if it is on, reflections from everything (ships
water whatever) and the fact that a given pulse detected from a given area
might only give you a broad angle to the bogey and that determining range is
another feat on tomp of that. Plus you have to determine if you get multiple
pulses if you have more than one target, or if it is a reflection, if it is an
air or sea target, etc. etc.
And the enemy has systems in his active systems which screw up the signature
of his system so it won't match the one in your database (maybe they even vary
dynamically) and therefore your stats on pulse repetition (fixed or
incremental) and such might be hard to corellate.
Additionally, you introduce a pile of civilian contacts in any moderately busy
system and you throw in the fact that the enemy emitter may well be able to
tune his rig to look like something else (a civilian active system perhaps? or
an allied vessel?) and you have quite a challenge.
Will this collection of challenges vanish in FT? Some terrain related ones
might, but what impact does spacial terrain and energy fields have on this
picture? And will civilian shipping be a problem? In the busy areas, I'd think
so.
And for every step forward in ESM analysis, don't you get a step forward in
the opposite (screwing up ESM by messing up the signature of your active
systems?). Someone described the competition like this:
"You have a pentium-V running at 2 GHz
analyzing incoming signal pulses. You have to sort out bounces, reflections,
your own emissions, and then take the data, determine range and bearing and
how many of them there are, and do this from a fragmentary and maybe not up to
date database. Meanwhile,
EACH enemy vessel has a pentium-V running 2
GHz messing up their outgoing signal in new ways or imitating some other kind
of rig. It's a one against many competition."
Sounds like anyone trying to use ESM to passively figure out what is going on
is going to have a bit of a time, no?
To quote Los the oft-right, "for every measure,
a counter measure".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Thomas Barclay wrote:
Okay, just some thought. Now, I'm not in the ESM business, but in the radar
business, so I might make the odd misinformed assumption;)
> ESM in FT (well, in real world, but extended):
This is why we tell the ESM system exactly when we are transmitting. So there
shouldn't be a direct path from radar to ESM. Still, I can imagine reflections
from our radar coming back to the ESM system.
> reflections from everything (ships water
This is true. I wouldn't know any ESM systems that have the same bearing
eresolution as a good radar system. Why is this? Well, you need a good many
antennae in your ESM to get the broad band ESM capability. In
addition, you want 360 degrees coverage. So you'll need 360/area of
coverage antennae per frequency band. And last, radar antennae are big for the
very reason of getting the narrow beam. Now try to fit umpty of these big
antennae for your ESM system, and your ESM system suddenly got thrown off the
ship and off the budget;)
> and that
This shouldn't be too much of a problem, as you look for pulses with the same
characteristics. Even modern radar needs several pulses at the same frequency
for doppler measurements
> or if it is a reflection, if it is an air or sea
Air/sea target decisions would, I assume, be made based upon recognition
of the transmitter type.
> And the enemy has systems in his active
Then again, not everything is that easy to vary, and with high frequency
digital memories becoming available, the game might shift in favour of ESM
again. Being able to recognize the pulse-shape etc would be rather
interesting.
As for pulse repetition and such, noone uses fixed PRT anymore, do they?
> Additionally, you introduce a pile of civilian
Of course. Then again, anyone tuning their rig to seem civilian is giving up a
lot in the way of performance. Might as well switch off, and switch
on their very civilian decco/kelvin hughed navigation radar.
> Will this collection of challenges vanish in FT?
No... But a challange is there to be dealt with;)
> Some terrain related ones might, but what
Of course.
> And for every step forward in ESM analysis,
Hrm. They'd need a pentium-V for each of their active sensors. I'm not
sure who's got the winning argument here... Also, there's still a heck of a
lot fo outdated stuff floating around, against which your brand new ESM rig
would have a whopping good time. (And the same argument can be made for the
whopping new radar suite vs old ESM)
> Sounds like anyone trying to use ESM to
Yup. Doesn't make it impossible, though:) If it was all that
hard/impossible, why is it still being invested in? ;)
> To quote Los the oft-right, "for every measure,
Yes. So, it's going to require a die roll for both sides, with ESM vs sensor
quality taken into account?:)
Cheers,
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, "Thomas Barclay" wrote:
> Here's some ideas to correct "static
I like that. See (*) below.
> 2) Rally attempts outside of 6" are at +2
I like that, too.
> 3) Surprise enemy squad (lesson: you aren't
Not the kind of thing I'd like in one of my games.
> 4) SNIPER!
I sort of disagree with this. A sniper can be just as nasty for a command unit
if it is static, or if it moves with its troops. It could be argued that you
are better off not moving the commander if there is a sniper around, as you
are more likely to blunder into the sniper if you move. And all that moving
uses up Transfer Actions, perhaps more than if the unit just stood there and
waited for the sniper to hit them.
* By the odds, moving a command unit eats up 50% (assuming one action
spent moving) of the possible transfers. A +1 to the communication die
roll will, on average, mean that a Regular unit with a 1 leader will lose 25%
of its transfer actions, a 2 leader would lose 38% of its transfer actions,
and a 3 leader would lose 50%.
This means, on average that an R3 leader during an attack is just as well off
hiding in a corner somewhere as being with the front line troops moving
forward. For veterans, of course, the odds change to 20%, 30%, and 40% chance
of loss.
Once the attack starts to falter, and the units stop moving, the commander is
better of being close to his troops. The problem is that the leader has to be
within LOS. If troops are hugging a tree line, the commander won't see them
anyway. If the troops are spread out, he is only going to be able to directly
help one, maybe two, units. This seems
to suggest that since he's going to have to make +1 communication rolls
anyway, he should do so way at the back of the table where it is safe.
This appears to give you the exact opposite of what you are after. When the
troops are separated, in dense cover, when they need leadership the most, the
leader is better off staying nice in safe in the rear.
I suggest that you make it +1 to the communication roll if the units are
outside of a set distance AND out of line of sight. The distance would be,
say... 1 range band. So, a Regular unit would have an automatic
transfer at 6" from a unit, no modifier up to 8", and +1 beyond 8". For
a Veteran, the distances would be 6", 10" and beyond. This at least gives some
reason to have the command unit near the troops in dense terrain.
> At 9:34 AM +0200 5/30/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Hmm, I wonder if the High resolution ESM system should be a separate
fitment...
[snip]
> Hrm. They'd need a pentium-V for each of their active sensors. I'm not
Its not an argument by any means. Its a really damn good discussion that has
me thinking of some of the real world issues. We can extrapolate from there
for the 180 year jump.
> Yes. So, it's going to require a die roll for both sides, with ESM vs
That sounds like it. I'm still wondering if Crew grade needs to figure in.
Or can you take an illiterate Eurie Dolist, plop him down in front of the
radar set and expect it to work like a champ? (Press this button every 10
minutes...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Ryan Gill wrote:
> Hmm, I wonder if the High resolution ESM system should be a separate
Piossibly.. But I think there's still a lot of hard to solve issues there.
> >Hrm. They'd need a pentium-V for each of their active sensors. I'm
Yup:) Especilly for things that are ALREADY possible, I don't see them
suddenly becoming impossible.
> >Yes. So, it's going to require a die roll for both sides, with ESM vs
The question is, what do you want to express here, that's _particular_
to this kind of operation. Of course crew quality affects just about
everything that a ship does, in the way of speed of decision making, fumbling
at the buttons, etc. So I'd suggest the question is, does crew
quality have n _extraordinary_ impact here.
Well, actually... Modern radar systems run themselves pretty much. I can only
talk from my personal experience with the sysrtems we build, and with the few
navy ships I've been aboard of, but... Where older radar sets had a techie on
the job, in the CiC, modern radar systems only have a techie on standby in
case the thing breaks down, and otherwise it's switched on and off, and
operational parameters are set by the operator. Ask any maintainer for the
technical skills of those operators, and they are exactly none;)
So, the skill of the operator is in building a tactical picture from the
information presented by various sensor systems, and taking the correct
actions, as warranted by the situation/ordered by weapons doctrines etc.
Possibly, in case of jamming etc, the correct response has to be chosen, or a
correction has to be made. But this doesn't strike me as truly exceptional.
I think this MAY be a bit different for sonar and ESM; for sonar ears are a
definite issue, and I think most ESM's also have a sound output for the
operator to use in interpreting an ESM contact.
Anyway, that's just what crosses my mind when pondering the subject.
Cheers,