Sensors or firecons?

Hi everyone. In my psb universe I would think that the ships sensors are
linked to the firecons so it's the sensors that need to be the important
thing. As for trying to jink a 10,000 ton plus starship, travelling at
thousands of miles per hour, to eveade a beam travelling at light speed, I
don't think that's very feasible. IMHO:)

A 6G 10000 ton ship should be able to jink better than a 2G 100 ton ship.
Acceleration is acceleration. In cinematic a couple of Gs acceleration can
have huge positional differences, especially if you are
1/4 light second apart.

Roger Books

> On 6/29/05, david garnham <garnhamghast@fsmail.net> wrote:

> http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm

> david garnham wrote:

> As for trying to jink a 10,000 ton plus starship, travelling at
Jinking, no... rolling to distribute the energy an enemy's beam weapons can
transmit to a single area thus attenuating the damage... sure. So these ideas
of using "spare" thrust to make it more difficult to hit could be PSB'd into
doing just that...

Personally, I'm not too keen on the thrust modifying the lock-on rolls,
but I do like the sensor vs. ecm approach for lock-on rolls.

--Tim

> From: david garnham

If you're accelerating at 500 gravities, as in the Honor Harrington universe,
"thousands of miles per hour" is quite slow. Working it out in my head, one
**second** of acceleration should mean a displacement of 2.5 kilometers.

> Hi everyone.

You're not trying to evade the beam. You're trying to give your opponent a
hard time to predict your position, making him fire at the wrong spot. Given
the inherent delays at the longer ranges, this is not as impossible as it
seems.

Cheers,

Why not spin your ship up to a couple of hundred RPM before you enter combat
then?

Magic

--- "Flak Magnet (Tim)" <flakmagnet@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Jinking, no... rolling to distribute the energy an

> Robert Makowsky wrote:

> Why not spin your ship up to a couple of hundred RPM
Complicatons with such a tactic include inertial stresses on the structure and
components of the ship as well as on the crew. It would also pose a
potentially insurmountable technical challenge to get your own firecons and
weapons systems to track and fire effectively. Of course, you knew that...
*grin*

Again, this is degrading into debating PSB, which gets dogmatic, but if you're
going to use a "roll" maneuver as a defensive tactic, it isn't JUST the
spinning that's effective in attentuating the damage, it's varying the speed
that the hull is rolled at, otherwise the targetting systems would just
compensate for the roll in order to put a beam weapon on the same general spot
in the hull for as long as possible. Also, it isn't just "rolling" along a
single axis. Pitch and yaw wobbles would be used to make effective weapons
fire more difficult as well.

If you don't like the "wobbly spaceship concept", then PSB the application of
"spare" thrust as evasion into some way of "flaring" your drives at enemy
ships so that the sensor signature is "washed out" with
noise, etc...  Kind of like high-beams washing out the image of
night-vision goggles.

For the record: I'm not that keen on using spare thrust to evade fire
and modify lock-on or to-hit rolls.  IMO, there's really no way to keep
that from introducing way to much book-keeping and delay into the game.
In suggesting ways that it could be justifiable by PSB, I'm pretty much
playing devil's advocate.

--Tim

Tim,

I agree and was just shooting that out for the same reason, to less eloquently
say, lets not get bogged down in PSB at this time.

I side with the manuver can make a difference side as ranges are large. When
range is small you don't have the time to effect the shot.

Magic

--- "Flak Magnet (Tim)" <flakmagnet@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Robert Makowsky wrote: