I just finished reading the discussion on "Realistic" space combat. I have a
few ideas about ways to intergrate "hard science" into
FT.
New Sensor rules: In Stephen Guffey's New Babylon 5 adaptations (see THE PAGE
for more info), the concept of "stealth" is introduced. According to these
rules a ship can't even fire upon another ship until it overcomes the
opponent's stealth or ECM (this is done through a dice roll). Using a similar
concept I have come up with the following.
Before the actually firing occurs a player must annouce which
ships he/she is trying to "illuminate" (the number of ships that can be
"illuminated is equal to the number of firecons). The player rolls the number
of dice for the type of sensor system they pocess:
Sensor Type # of Dice Rolled
--------------------------------
Basic 1d6 Enhanced 2d6 Superior 3d6
The opponent then rolls the number of dice for the type of ECM system they
have (BTW, the ECM sytems are equal in MASS and Points Cost as the sensor
systems.):
ECM Type # of Dice Rolled
--------------------------------
Basic 1d6 Enhanced 2d6 Superior 3d6
If the total of the Sensor roll is greater than the ECM roll, the player can
shoot at that ship. If it is equal or lower, then the defending unit is safe.
A ship can attempt to illuminate the ship again
but it must have a free and working fire-con.
ALBATIVE PARTICLE CASTER: These devices are designed for games where screen
technology is unavailable. The caster launches a clould of chaff, aerosol,
reflective dust, whatever that defuses and scatters incoming fire from
directed energy weapons. The cloud covers the firing arc that the caster is
mounted and only works when it is activated (this must be noted in the
movement orders.) Only one caster may be mounted per arc and can be mounted in
any arc. The effect of the cloud in equal to that of a screen
and its level is equal to the caster's rating:
Caster Type Mass Points
------------------------------
Caster 1 1 4 Caster 2 2 6 Caster 3 3 8
The cloud lasts only on the turn that it's fired and dissapates after at the
end of turn. The main drawback of the system is that it works both ways and
its effect is cumlative.
EXAMPLE: A cruiser puts out a "1" rated cloud and intends to fire upon a ship
that has put out it's own "1" cloud. The shot counts as it goes through a
level "2" screen.
If the cumlative effect exceeds three, then no fire be executed.
Any questions or comments?
Later,
> New Sensor rules:
Aren't these Geoffrey Stewart's rules? Or is there another set?
The Sensor/ECM rules are interesting. It would add a lot of dice
rolling
to get the sensor lock-on.
The sandcaster rules are also good. Brings back those basic Traveller days.
One effective use for them would be to mount your sandcasters in the forward
arc, and have your main weapons in your port and starboard arcs.
There is room for abuse here though. I could mount enough sandcasters to put
out a "4" cloud in any one of the port, starboard, and fore arcs. I'd be
completely screened against enemy fire to get in close to your fleet.
> On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Jonathan Davis wrote:
> > New Sensor rules:
Opps...my mistake.
> There is room for abuse here though. I could mount enough sandcasters
I'd
> be completely screened against enemy fire to get in close to your
I'd re-read the rules. I thought I mentioned that only one
caster could be placed per arc. If I did leave this out, my appologies.
Later,
> ALBATIVE PARTICLE CASTER:
I really like this and will have to try and test it this weekend.
> Jonathan Davis wrote:
> The Sensor/ECM rules are interesting. It would add a lot of dice
Yeah, a bit more than I would usually want.
> There is room for abuse here though. I could mount enough sandcasters
I'd
> be completely screened against enemy fire to get in close to your
It would be very difficult to put out a >3 cloud with a one caster per arc
limit as Mark posted.
----------
> From: <Mark Andrew Siefert> <cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu>
<lots of snipping>
> ALBATIVE PARTICLE CASTER:
> directed energy weapons.
As well as stopping beam weapons, this sort of thing can be a useful defense
against very fast projectiles. The British Interplanetary Society's Daedelus
starprobe concept of the 1970s featured a "screen" which involved a cloud of a
few kilograms of smoke flown ahead of the ship. It was calculated
that this would be able to shred a half-tonne chunk of rock at a
relative speed of 12% light.
.
> On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Jonathan Davis wrote:
I reread your rules......
Opps...my mistake.:)
Date sent: 31-OCT-1996 13:29:30
> John Dunkelberg writes:
> @:) I'm a newbie to this list, and maybe I've got this wrong, but I
> That never stopped us before...
> @:) While a lot of the fighter conversations are interesting, you can
> Speaking of which, and just to make sure that no one ever associates
It's not a newsgroup because;
1.) No one has posted a RFD in any of the appropriate groups.
2.) No one has posed a CFV (or indeed volunteered to count those votes)
3.) No one has decided on an appropriate name for the group (should be pre
RFD)
4.) The Group has not been created.
5.) A group already exists (rec.games.miniatures.misc) that coveres the same
topics.
6.) Don't you think 5 are enough?
Also, some people can't read News, or post to it, as easily as E-mail.
Aha! I knew this realistic systems thread would lead to something good
eventually. You just have to be patient.
> Mark Andrew Siefert writes:
@:) I just finished reading the discussion on "Realistic" space @:) combat. I
have a few ideas about ways to intergrate "hard @:) science" into FT.
@:)
@:) Before the actually firing occurs a player must annouce which
@:) ships he/she is trying to "illuminate" (the number of ships that
@:) can be "illuminated is equal to the number of firecons). The @:) player
rolls the number of dice for the type of sensor system they
@:) pocess:
@:)
@:) The opponent then rolls the number of dice for the type of ECM @:) system
they have (BTW, the ECM sytems are equal in MASS and Points @:) Cost as the
sensor systems.):
@:)
@:) If the total of the Sensor roll is greater than the ECM roll, @:) the
player can shoot at that ship. If it is equal or lower, then @:) the defending
unit is safe. A ship can attempt to illuminate the
@:) ship again but it must have a free and working fire-con.
This is good, but will require a lot of work. What might work
better would be to have a roll to target the ship - and once it's been
targeted have it remain shootable for the remainder of the scenario.
The obvious follow-on to this would be to allow the ship to work to
make itself disappear again, perhaps by continuing to make ECM rolls in an
attempt to beat the number with which it was originally targetted.
@:) ALBATIVE PARTICLE CASTER: @:) These devices are designed for games where
screen technology @:) is unavailable. The caster launches a clould of chaff,
aerosol, @:) reflective dust, whatever that defuses and scatters incoming fire
from @:) directed energy weapons.
If you didn't mean for these to have limited ammunition, I would suggest that
they should. Two or maybe three shots. Or have caster 1s have three shots,
caster 2s two and caster 3s only one.
> John Dunkelberg writes:
@:) I'm a newbie to this list, and maybe I've got this wrong, but I @:)
thought this list was about Full Thrust...
That never stopped us before...
@:) While a lot of the fighter conversations are interesting, you can @:) get
lots of that in the sci.mil* groups...
Speaking of which, and just to make sure that no one ever associates MY good
name with a real topic on this list, does anyone here know why this is a
mailing list and not a newsgroup? Or is it one of those lists that is also a
newsgroup but I am just not subscribed?
Tangential postings are much less annoying than tangential mailings.
> John Dunkelberg writes:
Adam Delafield reponds:
> It's not a newsgroup because;
....
In other words it is a real pain and time consuming to create a newsgroup. A
mailing list is much easier, and tends to have a higher signal to noise ratio.
Enjoy,
> joachim wrote:
If it is shootable the remainder of the scenario, what's painting it? The same
firecon? If the firecon establishes a new target next turn or doesn't hand off
the target data to another ship, the lock would be lost. I like the idea of
rolling for each shot for realism. BTW fine job on the ideas Mark. I think
I'll give it a try soon.
> On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Mike Miserendino wrote:
> joachim wrote:
The
> same firecon? If the firecon establishes a new target next turn or
You also have to remeber that a crafty starship driver can adjust
his ECM and re-establish jamming....
Thanks for the comments Mike. I am HTMLizing the rules and
adding a few more ideas. BTW does anyone know where I can find some
pictures of space ships that fit the "near future" genre? (You know, clunky
and modular with fusion torch engines and SDI style weapons.)
Later,
Excerpts from FT: 31-Oct-96 Re: "Realistic" Systems Ideas by
@peninsula.starway.net.a
> > ALBATIVE PARTICLE CASTER:
My favorite story excerpt along this arc is from David Brin's _Startide
Riding_, where the... umm...
SPOILERS!
...where the Streaker ejects all the excess water it was carrying as it
rounded a gas giant, and some Tandu ships (& others) hit the mist of ice
particles at something like 0.5c. BOOM! <grin>
It's one sequence I'd *love* to see animated.... (The other,
incidentally, would be from Timothy ahn's _Conqueror's Legary_, when the
Wolf Pack arrvies. <grin> Anyone have anything like that for FT? ^_^ )
> At 10:53 PM 10/30/96 +0000, you wrote:
> There is room for abuse here though. I could mount enough
I'd
> be completely screened against enemy fire to get in close to your
A one caster per arc limit is illogical. The ship won't explode if we install
two level two systems. A better solution would be to say that because of
dissipation it is impossible for a ship to generate a >3 cloud no matter how
many systems were active at the same time. Besides which, if I were relying on
this system to protect me (no screens) then I would definitely want backups.
And if each system comes with only so many
effective uses, I might have ships (such as troop transports and/or
priority transports and such) that I would want to have extra uses even if I
couldn't use them (both systems) at the same time.
James
> Mike Miserendino wrote:
Sounds great...take your time though. I've got a large back-log
of stuff for the page that dates back to August. Work and school are a
real b****.
> If you do use my art, I only ask for noting credit.
Don't worry, you'll get it.
Later,
> Mark wrote:
OK. Here's some stuff I need to know:
* Do you have any needs for ship type? * Action or stills?
* Color or b/w?
* Graphic format(s) and resolution?
Later.
> Mike Miserendino wrote:
> OK. Here's some stuff I need to know:
Not really, but I think it should by eye-catching. If you are
looking for inspiration I suggest you look to EA ships or the capital
Confederation ships from the later Wing Commander games (3 or 4)
> * Action or stills?
Action would be very nice.
> * Color or b/w?
I'll leave that up to you. What ever is easier for you.
> * Graphic format(s) and resolution?
Format wise,.GIF would be best. Resolution? Somethinga about 3x5 inches would
be nice.
later,
Hi,
Wouldn't an APC cloud effect your ECM status for people trying to illuminate
you? Assuming the particles are there to absorb and disrupt incoming energy of
whatever kind, if they work on beam weapons they'd probably interfere with
whatever detection system your opponent was using.
Also, what about a ship continually thrusting? If I have a destroyer with an
APC forward and I accelerate at full velocity this turn and then use the APC
I'm covered at least for that turn. If next turn I do the same thing, again
I'm covered. However in "real life" I've been accelerating the whole time and
should gain no protection whatsoever from an APC
cloud--hell,
I might even take damage from flying through the clouds myself!
James
> Mark wrote:
OK. I'll let you know when I have some ready.