Sensors Fr: [FT] Simultaneous Fire

That's fine, so he'll be doing it. I might have some suggestions soon then
:) .
So does this mean (as it seems to) that the sensors will not survive in their
present form. I imagine we all should play with the sensors rule (the only
ones) printed 'til such time as the rewrite however.

A

[quoted original message omitted]

G'day,

> That's fine, so he'll be doing it. I might have

Well just fire away when you're ready the list's always pretty keen to hear
suggestions.

> So does this mean (as it seems to)

Well listening to the way Oerjan said it probably not;)

> I imagine we all should play with the sensors rule (the

Yep or any house-rules you come up with that suit you better, there's
probably a few versions kicking around the web or in the list archives if
you're after inspiration.

Cheers

Beth

Hiya Beth, how's Oz?

> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Beth Fulton wrote:

> Well listening to the way Oerjan said it probably not ;)

Drat, I like the extra work they allow...

> Yep or any house-rules you come up with that suit you better, there's

I have a few ideas I'm batting around for optional added sophistication. Not
unlike my Nasty Weapons in DSII from a few years back. The trick is if they
are worth it or not.

Some involves using the DSII basic/enhanced/superior
concepts. Its still all very formative.

G'day Ryan,

> Hiya Beth, how's Oz?

All up pretty good.... though DAMN chilly here this morning (snow on the

mountain and the building's heaters go out!!!)

> Drat, I like the extra work they allow...

Well I don't mind the extra "stuff" sensors would allow, but some streamlining
may be nice (but that's just me who gets the basic idea of active vs passive
but is a bit lost why its so hard to tell what ship it is
if we can use echo-sounder stuff to follow individual zooplankters in
the ocean).

> I have a few ideas I'm batting around for optional added

Well when you're ready don't hold back!;)

Cheers

Beth

> >Drat, I like the extra work they allow...

Are those Not So Wee Beasties wandering around all quiet like or are they
really really chatty? Its my understanding that they are chatty. If they
suddenly clammed up one day because they realized you were listening in to
their conversations how easy would it be?
> Well when you're ready don't hold back! ;)

I've got to iron out the more simple Heavy Bomber concept first. Then I'll
work up the sensor ideas more thoroughly....a convergent SWACS concept.

G'day,

> Are those Not So Wee Beasties wandering

Well it'd be harder to find whales if they clammed up (which they periodically
do anyway), but I was actually talking about zooplankton (max about 5cm long).
That's why it seemed weird that we can follow just one of those around (or pay
attention to whole school or whatever you want to do in between), but can't
figure out what kind of ship that is over there. But like I always say I'm NO
engineer!!!!

> I've got to iron out the more simple Heavy

Cheers

Beth

> At 2:37 PM +1000 5/30/01, Beth Fulton wrote:

For some reason I thought you were talking about the great beasties that munch
on the wee beasties.

So do the Zooplankton make noise or something?

> That's why it seemed weird that we can follow just one of those

G'day,

> For some reason I thought you were talking

That's cool wasn't real clear I guess;)

> So do the Zooplankton make noise or something?

Well some species can release gas bubbles and can "click" etc which makes them
easier to find in the first place, but to be honest I think a lot of the
tracking would be the equivalent of "active" sensors (specific frequencies
pick out different species...low for animals with air bladders inside, high
for deep sea fish and other animals with no air bladders). So
now I'm probably confusing some of the content/argument of earlier posts

about which was easier for use in identification, sorry.

Cheers

Beth