Just a quick note now. Stealth is a hull modification. It takes away
structural strength (weak hull) and in return makes lock-on more
difficult
for the enemy. (1/4 range band reduction for stealth 1, 1/3 for stealth
2.
Cost/mass is the same as for partial/full streamlining). PSB is a hull
design that defeats sensor detection.
Fighters are abtracted differently. The stealth hull gives them smaller sensor
signature, adn are harder to hit, giving them the equivalent of screen
protection vs. PDS. Stealth 1 fighters are identical to heavy fighters in
effect, just differnet PSB. Stealth 2, as Indy knows well, are screen 2
equivalent.
As for lopsided firing arcs, this is certainly a plausible design if you
take the FB roll-ship maneuver into account. If you know a force is
trying to blind side you, you can flip and blastem.
I'l be happy to share designs and thoughts.
> As for lopsided firing arcs, this is certainly a plausible
Doesn't work if you get doubled though. Interesting enough in the age of sail
ships could only fire a broadside from one side at a time as they only had
enough crew to man the guns on one side.
The original idea reminds me of puff the magic dragon converted dakota gunship
thingy which circled its target and blew it to pieces in vietnam. As long as
you had air superiority it worked.
> Tim Jones wrote:
> >As for lopsided firing arcs, this is certainly a plausible
If you misjudge where the enemy is going to end up, you're out of luck
anyway. The off-set arc designs are more vulnerable to that than
weapons-all-around a la the NSL, but OTOH the off-set arcs ships hit a
lot harder when they can fire :-/ If you use Noam's tactics of
long-range
circling, there's no real way for the enemy to blind-side you.
> Interesting
Hm. I seem to recall crew organisations where the gunners were divided
into "starboard" and "port" gangs, but I'm not at all sure about it :-/
Later,
> Noam R. Izenberg SRP wrote:
XXX
Here is the problem: Ship sensors suffer the reduction, not the
weapons. A weapons range could be reduced if its range was greater
than the modified sensor range. Once a ship crosses the modified line of
detection,
it has been detected, and is a viable target at that range. JTL
XXX
> Fighters are abtracted differently. The stealth hull gives them
XXX This again infers that the ships sensors are no longer functioning and
the PDS is operating under a 'local/visual' fire control system.
While I can agree with the 'smaller sensor signature' portion of the
statement the 'harder to hit' is only wishful thinking. Once the
fighter
is on the sensor screen it is no different than any other fighter. JTL
XXX
> As for lopsided firing arcs, this is certainly a plausible design if
XXX And exactly how would you use this concept to defend a planet or space
station? The ships are designed to fight while withdrawing from the
combat. JTL XXX
> I'l be happy to share designs and thoughts.
Bye for now,
At 07:51 PM 1/25/99 +0100, The man with a penchant for rewriting
> attribution lines, especially for Indy, wrote:
Of course, that's also taking blatent advantage of a fixed board size... if
someone's going to start running circles around the edge board, I'm going to
start insisting that we move the board if someone pushes the edge! (Which I
would then start to do....) Whether it'll work or not is somewhat debatable,
but leaving part of your force in the middle of the table and sending another
to the edge may help the situation. Or may allow defeat in
two small lumps. ^_^; I dunno....
> John Leary wrote:
> Noam R. Izenberg SRP wrote:
> weapons.
See my other post for one fairly reasonable PSB explanation to this.
> XXX
Exact.y. Meeting the enemy far enough away from the planet/station gives
you plenty of room to fall back on; it depends on how the early warning
systems work in your background and how easy it is to intercept incoming
fleets.
Regards,
Aaron wrote in reply to me:
> >If you use Noam's tactics of long-range
I wouldn't start running circles around the edge board. I'd run circles
around the enemy, and the more space I have to do so in the better -
best is an unlimited playing area. On a cramped playing area with fixed
borders, long-range and stealth ships are crippled. (Note that the
Iceberg-Kochte battle was fought on the floor - ie, a comparatively
large playing area.)
> I'm going
Fine :-) It won't hurt the circlers if they know what they're doing -
but it might hurt their opponents.
Later,
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, John Leary wrote:
> Here is the problem: Ship sensors suffer the reduction, not the
> weapons. A weapons range could be reduced if its range was greater
This assumes that sensor detection and targeting are identical. I'm assuming
that individual weapons require target lock to fire and hit. Stealth
frustrates the target lock.
Re: fighters
> This again infers that the ships sensors are no longer
JTL
Same as for ships. It's not the sensors. It's the target lock. It's realy just
PSB for the game effect, but it is consistent.
Re: Broadside arcs
> And exactly how would you use this concept to defend a planet or
Different ships for different roles. Some system defense ships are not
designed this way. However, if an anemy decides not to give chase to a
defending stealth ship and intstead attack the desired target
base/planet,
they will present a flank/rear to the long range weapons of the stealth
defenders and be picked off with the death of a athousand cuts.
Offest arcs are primarily offensive in nature, to my analysis, but they
vertainly have use on the defense.
> Noam R. Izenberg SRP wrote:
XXX
In the FT/MT/FB detection and targeting ARE identical. All
fuctions that function to control, detect, and direct weapons function THRU
the FCS. One of the problems I have stated with the VERY generized 'stealth'
concept that has been developed here is that it revises the building of ships.
The concept even in the infant stages of development changes the shipbuilding
rules and GIVES a LOCAL FCS to each and every weapon mount on the ship. A
central FCS is no longer necessary to control, detect or direct the ships
weapons. Just throw the FCS away an mount more weapons.
Also note that if the target lock is an individual thing, then one should
check for each mount individually. Also note that a ship while in 'stealth'
mode would not be using search or target sensors, and therefore the 'stealth'
ship cannot fire its weapons while in 'stealth' mode. JTL XXX XXX
> Re: fighters
JTL
> Same as for ships. It's not the sensors. It's the target lock. It's
XXX
The 'all things to all people' mode is back on! The individual
weapons
mounts have a local fire control and ...non-sensor...target lock
devices.
If the PSB is an anti-lock device then the weapons should not have a
hard breakthru point. Individual rolls per weapon should be made to determine
lockon. JTL
XXX
> Re: Broadside arcs
Bye for now,
> XXX
Well, no, although I grant you I don't see the sensor rules being actually
used much.
> One of the problems I have stated with the VERY generized 'stealth'
Which is why I disagree with Oerjan's point of view
> Also note that a ship while in 'stealth' mode would not be using
Well, you could use passive sensors. When you're ready, you can paint your
target with your firecon and shoot. He'll know that you're shooting, but it'll
be a little late for him to do anything about it. Stealth is good for sneaking
up on your target. Once he knows you're there, it's time to switch to ECM jam
mode (which I assume include spoofing)..
Noam said:
> Offset arcs are primarily offensive in nature, to my analysis, but
John L said:
> Your opinion is a good as mine. We will have to agree to disagree
I disagree!... er... I think offset arcs are best used on the offensive, in
the sense that the offender (grin) is usually the one who picks the range
of engagement. I haven't gotten into a close-range turning contest with
them yet, although I'd think they'd be good at that. Sounds like Noam actually
uses them in the same way the Islamic Federation forces do, to wit, circling
at long range. This is still an offensive mode, just skirmishing instead of
shock. Skirmishers can win if they can maintain the range they want.
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, John Leary wrote:
> Noam R. Izenberg SRP wrote:
I'm
> > assuming that individual weapons require target lock to fire and
I had always thought a ships' sensors were independednt of FCS, and FCS was
specifically the weapons control system. Can't you have a scout ship with only
ships sensor's a PDS or two, and no weapons or FCS?
> One of the problems I have stated with the VERY generized 'stealth'
> The concept even in the infant stages of development changes the
Hardly. FCS targets the weapons. Stealth confuses the FCS. It doesn't matter
whether the FCS controls all the weapons or one. Again, I think we're simply
under different PSB assumptions. If mine are clearly violating the game
spirit, I'll try to revise them, but I'm not yet convinced that's the case.
> A central FCS is no longer necessary to control, detect or direct the
That's fine if you want weapons that can't target anything. ;-) I am
_not_
advocating or claiming individual weapon FCSSeeing a target, and knowing
its general location is one thing - that's the role of ships sensors.
FCS' role is to pinpoint the target so that weapons can hit it. One or all of
a ships weapons use the targeting of the FCS. Again, if my understanding is
fundamentally flawed, so be it. I'll have to revise my PSB.
> Also note that if the target lock is an individual thing, then
That's abstracted by the single FCS controlling multiple weapons.
> Also note that a ship while in 'stealth' mode would not be using
Except that stealth is not an active system. It's integral to the hull
structure of the ship. It's not, in this conception, and either-or
silent-running kind of system. It was originally modeled after the
Minbari of B5, who could operate and fire with impunity while the enemy could
not lock on. While on B5 stealth is a ships system, for FT, I though it would
work better as a hull modification.
> > Same as for ships. It's not the sensors. It's the target lock. It's
That adds unnecessary complexity, which is abstracted by the simple 'treat as
screen 2'. I wanted stealth to be as simple to apply as any other system in
FT. Forcing a lockon roll for each weapon and then another roll to hit is
complexity few would want to add. reducing effective range bands for weapons
has the same effect and is far more elegant, IMHO.
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Noam R. Izenberg SRP wrote:
[snip]
> > Noam R. Izenberg SRP wrote:
I'm
> > > assuming that individual weapons require target lock to fire and
[snip]
> Hardly. FCS targets the weapons. Stealth confuses the FCS. It doesn't
[snip]
> That's fine if you want weapons that can't target anything. ;-) I am
FCS'
> role is to pinpoint the target so that weapons can hit it. One or all
Hiya Noam! I've been watching this discussion unfold, and I think I can add a
useful point of logic here. Your "stealth hull" *does* violate the PSB for the
Tufflyverse in the following manner:
The FCS system in FT is, quoting from FT2 pg 7:
"... a suite of sensor systems and computer facilities to direct the fire of a
ship's offensive weaponry..." "Each FreCon system permits the ship to engage
ONE target..."
Now, while this is very basic stuff, it does very strongly imply that the FCS
system work in a very similar manner as the Fire Control systems on modern
jets. Take the Hughes An/APG-9 that was fitted on the original F-14/A
as an example. That "FCS" is able to track up to 24 targets and actively
engage 6
targets for missile launches. Whether the pilot is using the AIM-54
Phoenix
(range 150 km), AIM-7 Sparrow (range 45 km), or AIM-9 Sidewinder (range
8km),
the F-14's FCS can track 24 and actively engage 6 at whatever range.
In a similar manner the FT FCS can actively engage 1 target per module. The
range of the weapon used is independent of the range and
tracking/engagement
ability of the FCS, since you can use *any* FCS mounted on a ship to fire
*any* weapon.
If your "stealth hull" affects the FCS of an opposing ship, then the only two
main game effects that make any sense given the PSB of the FCS are as follows:
1) It can degrade the ability of the FCS to "lock on" to the target at all
ranges. This would reduce the "to hit" roll of all weapons, not the range (in
a manner similar to standard screens vs beams).
2) It can "hide" the ship from the opposing FCS at range. This is the effect
that you are trying for. Unfortunately, in order to fit in with the PSB of the
FCS, this would have to be an *absolute* range hiding effect, not a relative
one, and should still affect the "to hit" roll to make any
sense -
i.e. an FCS system can lock onto a stealthed ship in the 0->12 MU
range
band without penalty, in the 12->24 MU range band the stealth ship
causes
all attacks to be made with a -1 to the die roll, in the 24->36 range
band
the stealth causes attacks to be made with a -2 to the roll, etc.
(assume "level 2 stealth" in this example:).
Unfortunately, the weapons range reduction as you have proposed just doesn't
fit in using the PSB provided <g>.
> -MWS- wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Unfortunately, the weapons range reduction as you have proposed just
(I have removed the useful content of the message.)
I understand the defensive attitude for the stealth concept that
Noam has. I have dome some creating myself and it is sometimes
very hard to acknowledge flaws in ones own creation.
I tend to be somewhat abrupt and direct at times. I hope the content of your
message will be more easly accepted as it is much
better phrased than most of mine. As a third party I feel your
comments are of great value.
Bye for now,
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, John Leary wrote:
[snip]
> ...
Well - naturally, since I'm agreeing with you . . .
[grinning and running *very fast* from thrown bricks]
Seriously, though, if all you do is use Noam's "stealthtech" as a pure game
mechanic, it works. After all, any rule can be introduced without
justification if it creates a mechanism that you can enjoy using in a game.
The problem comes when you try and logically justify the steathtech with any
sort of PSB, given the Tufflyverse mechanisms. Noam's stealthtech fails the
logic test in the following manner - and I really should have used this
example in my previous post.
A single FCS can be used to direct any number of weapons against a single
target - subject to individual weapons restrictions, of course (Pulse
Topr, Needle Beam, etc.). If so, how can a single FCS lock on to a stealthed
ship at 20 MU well enough to fire several Class 3 beams at the target, and yet
still be confused enough to not be able to fire its battery of Class 2 beams
at the same target? It *has* target lock, otherwise the Class 3's couldn't
fire - so why can't the Class 2's smite the stealthed ship as well?
The game mechanic says "reduce the weapons range by 1/4, 1/3, ...", yet
the PSB behind it counts on confusing the FCS of the opposing ship. Sorry, but
the logic subprocessor of my internal wetware bounces the stealthtech PSB out
as invalid.:)
...Snip...JTL
> I had always thought a ships' sensors were independednt of FCS, and
XXX Basically correct, the basic ship sensors are freebe and indistructable.
(and should be considered on every ship built even those with E- or
S-sensors.
This sensor does not appear on the SSD and therefor cannot be destroyed.)
In FT/MT you cannot have a ship without an FCS, the FCS is 'issued'
by class of ship. (You may buy additional) In the FB the FCS is
purchased as a system and therefore it is possible to build a ship without a
FCS as you
describe the scout ship. JTL
XXX
...Snip...JTL
> Hardly. FCS targets the weapons. Stealth confuses the FCS. It doesn't
XXX I'm sorry! It does matter. The neat game mechanic of 'range eater'
is not valid if the central FCS is what is affected by the 'Stealth/ECM
thing'. JTL XXX Again, I think
> we're simply under different PSB assumptions. If mine are clearly
XXX I am trying to operate in the real world for much of the discussion,
and trying to advise you of possible problems in the current FT/MT/FB
rules that your use of PSB to justify the game device will possibly cause. JTL
Suggestions: 1) Define what 'Stealth' is and what you want it to be. 2) Define
what 'ECM' is and what you want it to be. 3) Try to devise a way to use the
'range eater' game device as a new weapon rather than hiding under an
illogical PSB explanition of
stealth/ECM. JTL
XXX
> > A central FCS is no longer necessary to control, detect or direct
FCS'
> role is to pinpoint the target so that weapons can hit it. One or all
XXX Having pinpointed your position when your ship crossed the 24 inch line,
my 'A/3' can fire at your because you are 'target locked' at 22 inches.
There is no logical reason that my 'B/2' cannot fire on you at 22 inches
because
you are 'target locked' and within range. JTL
XXX Again, if my understanding is
> fundamentally flawed, so be it. I'll have to revise my PSB.
XXX
Agreed! JTL
XXX
> > Also note that if the target lock is an individual thing, then
XXX True, but your search and target sensors are active and can be tracked
quite accurately by my sensors. JTL
XXX It's integral to the hull
> structure of the ship. It's not, in this conception, and either-or
XXX Then let me tell you how I accomplish the same thing!
Sensors come in three grades:
Standard - range 60 inches.
Enhanced - range 120 inches.
Superior - range 240 inches.
Sensors may only detect mass values beyond half range. Sensors may detect and
range on any sensor of equal or lesser grade. And to make matters interesting,
we use ECM.
ECM - divides the range of sensors in half.
(Or, reduces the effective sensor grade by one level) To your anology, The
Mimbari are equipped with superior sensors and the others have standard or
enhanced sensors, the Mimbari may not be detected by the others because the
others do not have equipment to receive the
Mimbari transmissions. Does this sound reasonable? JTL
XXX
> > > Same as for ships. It's not the sensors. It's the target lock.
It's realy
> > > just PSB for the game effect, but it is consistent.
> That adds unnecessary complexity, which is abstracted by the simple
XXX Stealth is simple, materials and design reduce the sensor signal return.
Its all the active things that are going on that bother me. When you
get to ECM what is going to be left to do that your stealth does not already
do? JTL. XXX Bye for now,
> ...Snip...JTL
Yes. My Night Music & Night Vision class ships, for example. A lot has been
snipped here but I agree with M Hauptmann that Stealth affects the sensors,
not directly the weapons. When you achieve target lock at 20", then everything
hits as it normally would at 20". Except Indy's torpedoes, of course.
> -MWS- wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Well - naturally, since I'm agreeing with you . . .
XXX That is not why I made the comment. I was considering that your verbage
and phraseing woild be more effective in communicating the point that is once
again clarified in
the following example about FCS. JTL
XXX
> Seriously, though, if all you do is use Noam's "stealthtech" as a pure
...Snip...JTL
XXX I have deleted the example in favor of my oun PSB to justify Noams
(What I call a new weapon.) And since I am on my ...more than first
drink ... and not fit to drive tonight. I may ramble...excessively!
Oh ya! The PSB. In the year (Pick a number) on the planet (Pick a planet)
researchers working of the fuel efficient interplanetary drive developed a
working (Have you ever read of the Bussard Ramjet)
free hydrogen scoop drive. The drive expelled the accumulated
hydrogen to provide thrust for the SLD (Sub light Drive). However the drive
did not produce the desired amount of thrust and was abandoned. Engineers
working on shield and beam enhancement weaponry and some point did notice that
the drive did produce 'waves' of localized free hydrogen in the space after
expulsion from the drive. Dr.(deleted for security reasons) of the Research
Institute of Harmony (in the FCT) found the waves created localized areas of
high density hydrogen atoms that would act as if a beam weapon was passing
thru a low density atmosphere and degrade the performance of the beam weapon
by (pick a percent).
PSB contimues...
Are holes present in the PSB, Yes! Are they as objectionable as: My (passive)
'stealth' actively degrades your weapons performance.
In my personal opinion no. While a certain degree of 'suspension of
belief' is necessary to accept my little story, I do not feel that the reach
is as far as 'my passive construction degrades your weapons performance'
At this point the keys keep moving and the on line time is getting to long and
I really don't know or care where this is going.
Bye for now.