Topic: Advanced Sensor Rules and Needle Weapons
Hi, gang. I've been creating a Microsoft Access program to automate PBEM games
and I came across some problems with the advanced sensor rules from More
Thrust. I'd like your opinion on the following:
In the main FT rules, when you fire a Needle Beam at a ship you get to pick
the system on the target ship that will be attacked by the Needle Beam. This
seems to imply that all of a ship's systems are available for perusal under
the basic FT rules, otherwise how would you know what to target with your
Needle Beams? (Yes, no, opinions?)
When using the Bogey rules a ship is "unknown" until it is actively or
passively scanned, at which point the ship is placed on the table. Since
Needle Beams have a range of 9" they are automatically within passive sensor
range. No problem.
Here's where the trouble comes in: the advanced sensor rules in More Thrust
seem to imply that ship record sheets are hidden. In More Thrust we have
Basic, Enhanced and Superior sensors. The rules state that Basic sensors act
like the regular sensors from the FT, that is an active scan places the ship
on the table. However, what does this MEAN exactly when Needle Beams are used?
The implication in FT is that once a ship is placed on the table you can see
its record sheet, otherwise you won't know what systems can be hit.
The Enhanced and Superior sensors give you more information about the ship. A
die roll of 1 or 2 gives nothing, 3 gives mass and whether or not the ship is
a military ship, and better rolls give more and more detailed information
about the ship. The implication here is that the record sheets are hidden
until a suitable sensor roll is made. This seems to contradict the line in
More Thrust that states that basic sensors act just as they do in FT because
FT implies that you get to see the entire record sheet.
So what do you REALLY get from an active scan using the More Thrust rules?
Here's my interpretation; let me know what you think about it:
Bogey: you know the ship's rough size grouping (escort, cruiser, capital).
Merchant ships will be slotted into one of these three settings based on their
mass. For example, a mass 32 merchant would be listed as a cruiser sized
bogey.
Basic Sensors and Passive Sensors: successful active scan gets you the ship
name, the class name, and size grouping. You do NOT know if it is a military
ship or a merchant. Most of this data will be completely useless unless: 1)
you've met this ship and class before, 2) you scan another ship with better
sensors and find out exactly what it has on
it, 3) as part of the scenario/campaign you are given record sheets
for ships your side has encountered previously in the universe background.
Enhanced Sensors: as per the More Thrust rules. A 1 or 2 roll gives you the
same as basic sensors (this isn't explicitly stated in the More Thrust rules;
they state that you get no information, but I think this should default to the
same info as Basic Sensors). A 3 gives you the actual mass and whether the
ship is a military ship or a merchant. Higher rolls give you more information
about systems.
Superior Sensors: same as enhanced sensors, but with the +2 to the die
roll listed in More Thrust.
Okay, but how does the above tie in with Needle Beams? This is totally
unexplained. How can a ship target a system that it doesn't know exists? Well,
it probably can't. But can a ship target a weapon system it hasn't scanned but
KNOWS exists because it's been hit by it?
You might be tempted to say "yes" to that last question, but here's a problem.
Let's say there's a NAC cruiser with 2 A beams. It fires one A beam at a
Eurasian battleship on turn 1. The Eurasian battleship fires a pulse torpedo
back at it, and the torpedo causes a threshold check that takes out one of the
A beams. Turn 2 and the battleship fires first. It hasn't successfully scanned
the NAC cruiser, but the player declares a Needle Beam attack on the A beam
that fired at it. The NAC player says, "Sorry, you took that out with the
pulse torps," and proceeds to attack the battleship with the remaining A beam.
This causes an argument as the Eurasian player says, "Prove to me that the
remaining A beam wasn't the one that fired at me!" You see the problem? The
Eurasian player knows the NAC ship had an A beam, but it didn't know about the
OTHER A beam.
In order for this to work properly everyone would have to keep a list of which
weapon was fired previously and so is known to all enemy ships. Oh, but
suppose the enemy has reinforcements show up? For that matter, should every
player on the same side see the results of an active scan? Now you have to
keep track of which weapons were fired previously and which ships saw the
weapon fire or scanned the ship! This could get out of control pretty easy.
Needle beams become seriously over priced based on the above argument. Either
you end up with a lot of onerous bookkeeping or your needle beams can't fire
until a ship has been scanned. And does the same criteria hold true for needle
missiles?
Does anyone have any suggestions for handling this anomaly?
I've come up with some options to handle this. I'm not 100% in favour of any
of them, but they cover the options I could think of. Any other options, or
comments on these, are greatly appreciated.
1) Don't use advanced sensor rules with needle weapons. (Simple enough, but a
bit of a cop out.)
2) Don't let a needle weapon fire at any system -- including the
engines -- without the system being scanned. (This makes needle
weapons more difficult to use. It also has the weird situation of a weapon
being fired but no needle weapon able to target it because it wasn't scanned).
3) Allow a needle weapon to fire at the engines of a ship without having to
scan them. All other systems must be scanned first.
4) Allow ships firing needle weapons (beams and missiles) to see a list of
systems on a target ship. Assume that needle weapons require advanced sensors
better than that available on other ships. (Of course, this will lead to
scanning by needle fire. I can see needle missiles becoming a cheap form of
drone sensor package, with the side effect of it possibly destroying a
system.)
5) Make all system information available to all ships within 9", putting all
ships on an even playing field. (This works for needle beams, but what about
needle missiles?)
6) Allow a needle weapon to fire at a ship that hasn't been scanned. The shot
will target a random system. As an option, allow knocked out systems to be
counted as the possible target system. (Essentially, the gun team or missile
AI is aiming at gun ports, missile tubes, or just prominent bits of the ship.)
7) Same as 6, but group systems into three main chunks: weapons (including
fire cons), engines (including FTL) and other. A needle weapon would target
one of these chunks, and the system targeted would be chosen at random from
the systems in that chunk. (Same as 6, but the firing player has a bit more
control over what he fires at).
8) Keep track of each system that fires. If it has fired, treat it as though
it had been scanned. Optionally, keep track of each ship that saw the weapon
fire. (Lots of bookkeeping, and probably not worth the effort.)
Note that in most cases if a successful scan has been done, allow the ship to
fire at a scanned system. This may still involve bookkeeping,
as it's possible for a ship to discover that it's target had -- for
example -- an A beam but it wouldn't necessarily know that it had been
taken out on a threshold check.
And finally, do you use the advanced sensor rules? Do you use the
needle weapons (beams and/or missiles)? If yes to both, do you use
them both at once? If so, how do YOU handle it? "Unlike serial killer
profiling, writing is a lonely and
depressing profession." - Jose Chung, Millenium
> Allan Goodall wrote:
Allen, Since it was a long message I'll keep the answer short and from a
personal point of view.
If someone is closing to within 9 inches/cm of me, you can
pretty much bet that they know every weapon I have by the time
they close to within 12 inches/cm.
Suggestion: Area ECM is -1 to scans and ship ECM is -2.
This will give the ECM some value in the game.
Suggestion: Do not give ship information out when the ship scans, and give out
only the die roll information when being scanned. (But never ship name.)
Bye for now,
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> 7) Same as 6, but group systems into three main chunks: weapons
Hi, Allan I'm definitely interested in seeing the results of your MS Access
work for PBeM gaming. I use limited intelligence and the advanced sensor rules
for the Empress tournament and have had no problem with the use of those
rules. One reason why the issue of needle beams has not come up in any Empress
match is that no player has designed a ship with a needle beam. In a total of
eight fleets in the first tournament and seventeen fleets in the second (one
player dropped out after designing a fleet) not one player has designed a ship
with a needle beam. My own personal ruling would allow the attacking player to
target systems as chunks, either engines, weapons, or avionics. I would
separate the FireCons from the rest of the weapons systems and lump them in
with any AECM or ECM systems onboard. FireCons are choice targets for a needle
beam over any specific weapons. And given that the number needed for a needle
beam attack is a 6 with a range of 9", the weapon system needs a serious
upgrade to become attractive for ship designers.
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:14:13 -0800, John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
wrote:
> Suggestion: Area ECM is -1 to scans and ship ECM is -2.
This might be a good thing to implement. I'll consider this.
> Suggestion: Do not give ship information out when the
"Unlike serial killer profiling, writing is a lonely and
depressing profession." - Jose Chung, Millenium
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:47:04 -0500, Jonathan Davis <davis@albany.net>
wrote:
> My own personal ruling would allow the attacking player
That was the way I was leaning: let them fire at the system chunks unless a
weapon was scanned. The problem then becomes "what systems fit into what
chunk".
Weapons fit into the weapons chunk; no problem there. Engines and FTL fit into
the engine chunk. Where do you put the Fire Cons. You suggest with AECM and
ECM. This would also include enhanced or superior sensors. However if you keep
the Fire Cons in with the weapon systems, you decrease the chance of a Fire
Con being hit. This has the effect of reducing the effectiveness of needle
weapons, so I think I agree
with you about putting it with the sensors/ECM.
Where would you put the PDAFs and ADAFs? Where would you put the shields? Lump
the shields, PDAFs and ADAFs in together as defensive systems? Or put the
PDAFs and ADAFs in with the weapons? For that matter, you could say that the
engines power the shields and put the shields in with the engines.
I'm leaning towards putting the PDAFs and ADAFs in with the shields.
> And given that the number needed for a needle beam attack is a 6 with
However, in the GenCon mailing list game Chris Pratt made effective use of
Needle Missiles fired at my battledreadnought. I'm actually less worried about
the wimpy needle beams than I am with the needle missiles. Besides, I'm
thinking of running a PBEM game once I get the program set up and I was
thinking of putting some needle weapons on one of the sides. Not because they
are any good, but because the scenario could be interesting.
"Unlike serial killer profiling, writing is a lonely and
depressing profession." - Jose Chung, Millenium
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> I'm leaning towards putting the PDAFs and ADAFs in with the shields.
I would agree with this. When I design a ship, I break out the mass available
into offensive role and defensive role mass. I then use the
defensive mass available for screens and point defense. The PDAF/ADAFs
would also be a measure of "protection" for the screens against the needle
attacks.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX Allen, Jon, If operating in the defensive mode certain
assumptions can be made with no great danger of being wrong. 1) The ship got
here, it must have an FTL drive. 2) The ship is moving, it must have thrust(of
some value). 3) The ship has been built by the Universal Shipbuilding Company
(Ltd)
and has FCS based upon its mass/class. (JTL)
XXXXXXXXXXXX
...Snip...(JTL)
> Here's where the trouble comes in: the advanced sensor rules in More
XXXXXXXXXXX
... One can suspect that at a range of 9 the ship can be observed on
some form of visual sensor. The director/detector program may operate
on these visual signals to target the selected system. The 'To Hit' may not be
for firing in this case but may be looked at as a
detection roll for the sensors. The die roll of 6 is a sucessful
detection and an automatic hit on the selected system, this point of view
explains why the needle does no damage on other than a 6. The system failed to
detect, the system did not fire. This should also answer most of the other
problems with the needle beams.(JTL) XXXXXXXXXXXXX
...
> The Enhanced and Superior sensors give you more information about the
XXXXXXXXXXXXX... Traditionally the 'Bogey' is simply an unidentified contact,
nothing more. Continued tracking gets speed and direction.
In FT/MT active sweeps allow the die roll for information.
My current usage for sensors is: Standard sensors, plus 0 to die roll, Range
60" Enhanced 1 120" Superior 2 240" Area ECM minus 1 Ship ECM minus 2
(JTL) ...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Basic Sensors and Passive Sensors: successful active scan gets you the
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Personally, I do this in the back of the brain during every
game.
(JTL)
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Note that in most cases if a successful scan has been done, allow the
Jon, XXXXXXXX I have always found that hot dice are much better than skill!
Bye for now,
I tend to use targetting option 8. You can target any system whether you know
its there or not but if you hit a
non existant system there is no effect - not even damage from the
missile. The needle missile closes on the target and at very close range can
detect target signatures. The needle beams are harder to come up with a
sensible rationalle but here goes. The beams are equipped with highly advanced
sensors which have no trouble detecting systems on the enemy ship but due to
system incompatibilities (and patent infringement and anti trust court cases
between the manufacturers of the ships sensors and needle beam sensors which
incidently look as if they will continue for decades) they are unable to pass
this information on to the ships sensors.
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:39:55 -0800, John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
wrote:
> If operating in the defensive mode certain assumptions can be made
I can live with this.
> 2) The ship is moving, it must have thrust(of some value).
By "FCS" you mean fire control systems? What do you do with ships that buy
extra fire cons?
> ... One can suspect that at a range of 9 the ship can be observed on
Hmm, this is an interesting idea. Make the 1d6 roll and if it hits let the
firing player choose the system. This could work, particularly in
face-to-face games. It might be a pain for e-mail games, though I
suppose needle firing players could make a list of different systems to fire
at in order of priority. For example, "Fire at 1) Fire Cons, or 2) A Beams, or
3) B Beams, or..." etc.
I'll have to think about this but it seems like an easy to use idea.
> ... Traditionally the 'Bogey' is simply an unidentified contact,
This has some merit, as I find the sensors are a bit too short in range.
However I'd prefer to stick to the rules as written for my PBEM program.
"Unlike serial killer profiling, writing is a lonely and
depressing profession." - Jose Chung, Millenium
> Allan Goodall wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
> By "FCS" you mean fire control systems? What do you do with ships that
...Snip(JTL)
> Hmm, this is an interesting idea. Make the 1d6 roll and if it hits let
> >Area ECM minus 1
Allen, You have surprised me, I did expect some return comments but "sensor
range to short" was not one of them.
I imagine that for the visual sensors the 'gumball' machine on the top of the
FCS (Fire Control System) and the arrow that says "SHOOT HERE FOR FCS' would
be enough. (This is a feature provided at no additional cost by the builder
for every FCS on the ship.)
Comment: I have presumed that if the detection roll is made then the needle
will always hit the selected target.
For one of my aliens I use the concept of the priority list for
needle fire. Two lists really, one for offensive mode and one for
defensive mode. I think this would work for E-mail.
I changed the ECM to give ECM some value, as it stands in the rules I gain the
same value from ECM that the other guy does, and I would much rather have him
pay the mass and point costs involved.
I try to keep things simple, interesting but simple. I do not
want to make a 'Star Fleet Battles' out of this game. I will without guilt
bend or break the design rules for an alien, but at the same time my aliens
have a lot of limitations built in to maintain play balance. It seems to have
gotten late and I am starting to wander totally off topic.
Bye for now,
-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
">My current usage for sensors is:
> Standard sensors, plus 0 to die roll, Range 60"
This has some merit, as I find the sensors are a bit too short in range.
However I'd prefer to stick to the rules as written for my PBEM program."
-------------------- End Original Message --------------------
Check the rules again. (FT p.21) Passive sensors range is 36" Active sensors
range is 54" Yes this means that you can damage a ship that you cannot see if
you are using a Wave Gun or Spinal Mount Nova Cannon.
-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
">My current usage for sensors is:
> Standard sensors, plus 0 to die roll, Range 60"
This has some merit, as I find the sensors are a bit too short in range.
However I'd prefer to stick to the rules as written for my PBEM program."
-------------------- End Original Message --------------------
Check the rules again. (FT p.21) Passive sensors range is 36" Active sensors
range is 54" Yes this means that you can damage a ship that you cannot see if
you are using a Wave Gun or Spinal Mount Nova Cannon.
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:15:37 -0500, Brian Bell
> <PDGA6560@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Passive sensors range is 36"
Actually, you can see it. You just don't know what it is.
"Unlike serial killer profiling, writing is a lonely and
depressing profession." - Jose Chung, Millenium
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:41:57 -0800, John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
wrote:
> Allen,
I may not have been clear. I thought YOUR sensor ranges were just find. I
thought the 54" and 36" ranges in FT2 are too short. In particular, I don't
like the ratio of active to passive. I think the passive range is too long
compared to the active range, and I think the active range is too short. In
last year's play by mail, there were only about 2 turns of active sensor
attempts before the ships were in
passive/beam range. I didn't think this was long enough.
> Craig wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
> trouble detecting systems on the enemy ship but due to system
Craig, That is as good a rationalization as visual sensors, and a lot better
in the humor department.
Bye for now,
> Allan Goodall wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)
In
> particular, I don't like the ratio of active to passive. I think the
...Snip...(JTL)
> By the way, it's "Allan" not "Allen."
ALLAN, I stand (well, actually sit) corrected, no offense intended!
I changed the ranges to simplify sensors and give a reason for people to buy
the improved types.
Food for thought, if a ship is running with jammers or screens on: 1) The
energy output of both of those system would be very large. 2) Against the
background of space it might well be possible for passive sensors to have a
high chance to pick up these systems beyond the range of the active sensors.
(Screens in particular due to the limited frequency range need to block a beam
weapon.)
However, for game play I think you are doing the right thing.
Bye for now,
Why not just moderate it as a package system in the sense of ECM level 1
/ 2 / 3, with each number representing a level similar to shields, ie.:
level 1, level 2, etc. The higher the number, the better the ECM rating with
maybe a restriction of level 3 going to weasels and cap ships only.
Either that or keep it to a die roll. Just a suggestion.
Gil
> Murphy's Laws of Combat #63
> ----------