> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> I can see Stealth being a threshold-able item, but I
I would agree if the 'stealth' were a system (or 2), much like thrust is
handled.
I would prefer to see the 'stealth' as a
attribute of construction/materials and have
it 'worn way'/reduced due to the damage accumulation
(at thresholds). (I.E. a stealth ship looses the
first level at the end of the second row of damage, and the second level at
the end of the third row of damage.)
Bye for now,
In message <20010707001149.9641.qmail@web4601.mail.yahoo.com>
> John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
I agree, and a similar methodology could be applied to aerodynamic hulls.
Hmm.. what about combined Stealth/Aerodynamics?
--- Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
wrote:
> In message
Charles, While I had not considered that concept, I do think the two can be
combined thru PSB. If the aerodynamic material is sensor transparent the
concept is very easy to model using the current rules.
Bye for now,
From: "Charles Taylor" <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> [quoted text omitted]
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:44:57 +1000 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au> writes:
I thought the stealth benefits of the F117 make it a *Less* aerodynamic design
for flight? That's why it's nicknamed the Wobbling' Goblin (Or some such)
IIRC...
Gracias,
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
wrote:
> From: "Charles Taylor"
I was thinking in terms of the sensor transparent
aerodynamic coating/structure overlaying the sensor
defusive/absorbing stealth material/hull.
In this case, discounts are not appropriate.
In your discound based concept the aerodynamic
structure is also defusive/absorbing stealth material.
Aerodynamic form is not likely to be defusive as it is based on smooth lines
and not on a series of small broken plains set to various angles to reflect
the minimum signal back to the detection equipment. One can always justify
anything with PSB.
Bye for now,
Glenn said
> I thought the stealth benefits of the F117 make it a *Less*
The 117 is *extremely* aerodynamic, compared to eg a Der Theuerdank NSL hull
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Laserlight wrote:
> Glenn said
But is this a valid argument? The F117 is an aircraft turned stealth, and it's
less aerodynamic than normal aircraft. Given the constraints of a spacecraft,
does it take more effort to make a stealthed, aerodynamic spacecraft, than it
does to make only stealthed or only aerodynamic spacecraft? Those are very
different matters entirely?
Cheers,
In message <20010708182626.18386.qmail@web4601.mail.yahoo.com>
> John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I was thinking in terms of the sensor transparent
Err.. thats _old_ style stealth - slightly newer stealth styling allows
for curved surfaces (ie. B2 - but note that the B" is mostly stealthed
in a horizontal plane - fully 3D stealth may be a bit harder).
***
But is this a valid argument? The F117 is an aircraft turned stealth, and it's
less aerodynamic than normal aircraft. Given the constraints of a spacecraft,
does it take more effort to make a stealthed, aerodynamic spacecraft, than it
does to make only stealthed or only aerodynamic spacecraft? Those are very
different matters entirely?
***
The manner of stealth now seen, and we all know extrapolations to future AND
outer space are dangerous, is mostly the material, though shape is still
important.
The 117's shape is flat on the bottom to allow small angle
ground-to-plane
waves to 'bounce' mostly in the other direction, while it's highly angled
sides tends to bounce other, say, airborne, radar upwards. Not sure about
the B-2.
If you focus on extra material for stealthy-ness in space ships in 3-d,
and extra material to make a ship's shape conformal for passing through a
medium, then you can PSB that they are related, though not the same, i.e. I
can add material to the shape and pay a bit extra to make it high-tech
stealthy material, both additions to the surface of the ship.
Or you can PSB it some other way altogether.
The_Beast
> > Glenn said
Derk said:
> But is this a valid argument? The F117 is an aircraft turned
My point is that a F117 may be a bit less aerodynamic than eg a F15, but it
still works pretty well as an aircraft. I expect it would be easier to make it
one OR the other, I'm just saying they're not
incompatible. Or maybe I'm just blithering. :-b...
Not so much an argument as a thought to be evaluated.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:49:29 +0200 (CEST) Derk Groeneveld
> <derk@cistron.nl> writes:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 18:57:13 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> > Glenn said
Well, if Aerodynamic is referring to performance in Air and The MT type rules
are used as a basis, and stealth is shape based as much or more then
composition then should a target as large as a Der Theuerdank NSL
hull act like the Mecha is DS2? (Paint a *Big* red bulls-eye on the
thing?).
I suppose I would/could PSB the whole issue away by finding reasons when
"space" weapons degrade excessively rapidly in an "air" envirnonment?
Precedence has been made in other rules! <grin>
Other then Ortillery, when would you want to expose your expensive space ship
(should stand out like an Iron Dinosaur to an aerospace defense system
designed to stop something as small as a warhead from a
sub-orbital vehicle (to give one example) to ground defenses? If the
processing power on a starship can place a Beam weapon on target over those
ranges, why can't a larger, underground, armored facility with scattered
ground station collection points easily place a Class 8 (to heck with those
puny Class 5's!) or Class 9 beam over those vital Space Ports the Drop Troops
seem so eager to take?
( "Report: Sighted Troop Transporter, Shattered Same.")
I just think a "positive loop" discount for Stealth AND aerodynamic seems
awfully cheap. But I am a FT secondarily to DS2 so I'll not get too involved
in this thread.
Gracias,
Too True.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 14:41:37 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> Glenn said
> My point is that a F117 may be a bit less aerodynamic than eg a F15,
A bit less is rather an understatement. It is impossible to fly without its
computer-assisted control system.
Though this applies t omost modern fighters (From the F-16 onward,
IIRC), which are naturally unstable to produce better maneuvrability.
Greeetings Karl Heinz
Re: Revised stealth.
So, JTL, Laserlight, Charles, etc..
Something like this seems to be favored:
Stealth hull loses 1 level at Threshold 2, second level (if any) at Thresh
3.
This better than a thresholdable system at first, then worse as the ship gets
more damaged, so on the whole, would it be a wash, costwise?
Is 7% mass/level and cost 5/mass too much/little? I think it workd OK
for a thresholdable system. If we want to tie it into streamlining, we could
Mass it like streamlining
(5%/level) and cost it 3 pts/Mass.
Or keep it at 7% and say that Stealth 2 ships are automatically partially
streamlined. Or add on to stealth at 3%Mass and 2pts/masslevel.
Mass Stealth 1 Mass Cost 150 11 or 15 55 or 45 100 7 or 10 35 or 30 50 4 or 5
20 or 15 25 2 or 3 10 or 9
I could go either way, perhaps leaning twoard the lighter, more expensive
stealth. The PSB of stealthing and streamlining doesn't bother me one bit. I
could see it work a bunch of ways. Don't forget Streamlining in FT could also
simply be a modified screen system that creates an earodynamic "shell" around
a ship screaming through an atmosphere.
It would help to ballance if there were any real [FT] game utility to
streamlining
> --- "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
XXX Noam, This form of stealth is suggested for use
with a 'materials/shape' stealth system.
I do not preclude the use of an 'electronic/ECM/
ECCM' type system that would have a threshold check at normal times, one or
two levels of electronic stealth can be used if treated in the
same manner as thrust for damage. Please note
that the effect of a system based stealth would not be the same as your
stealth.
> This better than a thresholdable system at first,
XXX That is certainly a good starting point. Playtest might suggest some
changes.
> Is 7% mass/level and cost 5/mass too much/little? I
XXX You should also consider the effect of not stealthing all arcs on the
ship, I.E. N.I. ships have offset fire arcs and therefor could stealth only
the nose, tail, and weapons arcs on one side
at 66 percent of the mass/cost.
But back to the original point, I do not think that the concept is viable
except for a 'one of' game. (Noam, I will pick on your N.I. to illustrate.)
The N.I. are not really suited a campaign game as the N.I. can only fight
effectively in a withdrawl type situation.
Any convoy escort, assault on planet/station,
or defence of same would be a disaster for the
N.I.
But back to the original point(again), I would favor a lower mass cost and a
higher point cost like; 5% mass and 5 points. Again, playtest might cause some
changes.
> Mass Stealth 1 Mass Cost
XXX Agreed.
> It would help to ballance if there were any real
Bye for now,
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D732AE@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> Re: Revised stealth.
Ok.
> This better than a thresholdable system at first, then worse as the
Err.. actually Streamlining uses 10% of hull MASS if partial, 20% if full, and
costs 2 per MASS.
> Or keep it at 7% and say that Stealth 2 ships are automatically
I do have one slight 'issue' with the whole stealth concept - a
stealthed ship, even a 200+ Mass SDN is treated as if it were further
away by any attacking ship, while a MASS 6 non-stealthed scout is
attacked normally.
The implication is that the stealth system reduces the signature of
_any_ ship to a value greater than that of a fighter (which cannot be
targeted at all by non PDS weapons), but less than that of the smallest
scout/strikeboat (which could be as small as MASS 3).
Anyway, why don't we make Stealth Systems WotW #11?
> At 8:13 PM -0400 7/8/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
Seriously. The big landers would have to come in once the smaller landers were
down and had eliminated the majority of the surface defenses that were large.
Imagine all the various batteries on Normady still intact and ready to fire
when the bigger LCTs and LSTs came in to drop off their cargos.
The big balance with shore support vs off shore support is that the Shore
based batteries are fixed and can't move. But they can be deeply dug,
scattered around and nicely camoflaged until they fire (add to that the heat
sinks for the weapons and reactors can be stuck into rivers and lakes, much
more efficient that way). The Space craft can maneuver. Once a battery has
fired it's likely going to find life hard unless it has good defenses (do
screens work in atmosphere?).
I suspect it would be a difference of who spent more time getting ready and if
you had the correct number over the opposition. Just like with anything
though. If you didn't spend enough assets reducing the defenses first, your
landing en masse would fail.
> ( "Report: Sighted Troop Transporter, Shattered Same.")
Stealth on re-entry would be pretty hard. The number of thermal
events in the atmosphere would make targeting that much easier.
In message <p05100e07b76fb8974908@[157.166.130.123]>
> Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
> The big balance with shore support vs off shore support is that the
[snip]
Well, the atmosphere _itself_ could act as a screen of some sort - in
all sorts of ways.
Of course, it cuts both ways :-)
Several responses here (Love that Digest)
From: John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
> Stealth hull loses 1 level at Threshold 2, second
> Noam,
How would you make Electronic stealth? Something that gets degraded if the
steath ship fires/uses 'active sensors'?
I prefer a single system with a couple ways of using it - just for
simplicity's sake. The "fixed loss" vs. "Thresholdable system" are easy,
small/subtle ways of differentiating a hull-based and electronics-based
system.
> You should also consider the effect of not
Intersting. Only the stealth designs are lopsided like that. I though of
making all of my NI fleet like that, but decided to go more FB conventional.
Jon's cannonizing of NI will change things yet again.
> But back to the original point, I do not
Yes and no. Campaign-wise, NI is a smaller power with a bigger, lower
tech
enemy (IF). Most of NI's battles are deep-space (resource fights,
strategic
operations, raids), and home defense (planetary/base). Stealth is suited
for only a few of those missions. So, Stealth (in campaign terms) would be an
expensive offensive mission option and would take up a fraction of the fleet.
> Any convoy escort, assault on planet/station,
Depends on the situation. Stealth would certainly not be best for planetary
defense.
> But back to the original point(again),
Time for another playtest round. If PBeM, probably in the fall.
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> I do have one slight 'issue' with the whole stealth concept - a
It's PSB. One way to think of it: Stelath diffuses the signal of a ship over a
much wider area of probability. Maybe you can hit the DN more easily than the
SC all things being equal, but the DN has a few shadow DNs in its vicinity,
and you have to pick one or strafe all of them to try to hit. Lots of
different PSB ways to do it, though.
> The implication is that the stealth system reduces the signature of
FT doesn't have size bonuses/penalties. Simple PSB is that 23rd century
sensing and targeting _is_ that good unless specifically countered by
things like stealth.
> Anyway, why don't we make Stealth Systems WotW #11?
OK by me. Should include Minbari Jammers, etc..
> --- "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> How would you make Electronic stealth? Something
Noam, A very workable and simple system was used in a campaign game last year.
sensors defined: normal range 60 units enhanced range 120 units superior range
240 units X sensors range 480 units (alien special)
electronic stealth provided one level of sensor degredation and was noted as a
special jammer.
constuction stealth provided one level of sensor degreadation and was part of
the hull that could not be destroyed.
The two types could be combined on the same ship.
The purchase of superior sensors would give a sensor range of 240, against a
ship with two stealth levels its effective range was 60 units, this was used
to effect intercepts and evasion at the EOS (edge of system).
EOS: Ships entering a system may randomly enter one of six areas at EOS. If
the defender has a ship in the area he can start a recon
against the entering ships. If not them the
defender knows only that the ships have entered the system and the total mass
of the entering ships. Normal sensors may see one area. enhanced sensors may
see three areas, superior sensors may see five areas.
Bye dor now,
From: John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
> A very workable and simple system was used
This sounds good, but it's on a purely strategic level. I wanted a workable
system for tactical combat. Either hull or the electronics version could
provide both the strategic level stealth you're talking about (I include
similar effects in my Simple Simon Sensor rules) and the tactical stealth
usable in FT scale combat.
> --- "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> This sounds good, but it's on a purely strategic
Noam, A ship with standard sensors against one stealth level has a detection
range of 30 units,
very tacitical! Standard vs 2 stealth levels
is 15 units, a disaster in the making. The system does encourage the inclusion
of higher level sensors even in scout ships, scouts can, of course, be
considred expendable and used in greated numbers to offset sensor ability.
Bye for now,