Here are some ideas I have rolling about in my head at the moment, for a solo
FT campaign I'm(slowly) working on.
ECM should have some effect on missiles, torpedoes submunitions, sensors etc.
Sensors - in addition to the chart on p6 of MT.
die roll 4 The detecting player may measure the on table range to the target
if he wants, (for the rest of the game?). 5 Needle weapons may be fired at
target.
Mabey use the DSII/SGII system of opposed die rolls for sensor lock on.
ie sensor vs ECM(missile attacks also?).
----------
Anti radiation missile.
May only fire at active sensor or ecm systems. Armed with any warhead. May
loiter if target system switches off. May also switch target?
----------
FTL fighters.
I'm sure that this has cropped up before on the list. Can anyone give me any
ideas. I was thinking of only allowing heavy fighters to have FTL, and then
mabey only a 2 or 3 LY range before refueling.
----------
Transport fighters.
Move 8"
Attacks fighters with -1 modifier.
Any fighters or *DAF have a +1 modifier when attacking this type.
May not attack ships.
May carry 1/2 mp of cargo(25Cargo Spaces).
2 points each.
----------
Fighter sized mines.
Basically a stationary fighter group. May be of any fighter type(except fast
or long ranged:)). Group of mines may be cleared by fighters,*DAF and C btty
as per normal. May be purchased in groups of less than 6.
May also be cleared by the following -
Submunition pack - Close range only. Destroys d6-2 mines.
Needle beam - Treat target system knocked out as a mine
destroyed.
Nova cannon/Wave gun - All mines destroyed.:)
Missile - each DP counts as 1 mine destroyed.
EMP/Needle missile - Each system knocked out equals one mine
destroyed. Possibly small size compensates for lack of mobility when under
attack? Any thoughts on points.
I suggest this for your ARM rules:
-Yes, missile must lock on to an active radiation source, i.e. fire
control radar.
-Yes, it may possibly be armed with any type warhead, but I suggest
limiting it to a warhead designed to destroy only the radiation emitter itself
(the system). Because these missiles are designed for and used for blinding an
enemy; his or her radar that is.
-No, I must disagee with the loitering of a missile. It is just not
believeable; they seek and destroy.
-Yes, missiles can switch targets. However, there are two situations
envolved in this; one is the missile is fired blind, and the firer prays that
the missile hits what it was aimed at yet knowing that the missile might stray
off for a more powerful radiation source. On the other hand to ensure that the
missile does strike its target it should be programed with say 4 targets
should it lose tracking on its first objective.
Paladin
> Thomas Heaney wrote:
> Anti radiation missile.
> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Earl D. Hansen wrote:
> I suggest this for your ARM rules:
fire
> control radar.
I remember reading, a few years back, of an Anti-Radiation Cruise Missle
that would, if it's target ceased radiating, loiter in the area waiting for
the radar to be turned back on again to look for the missle...it's a neat
idea: ARM incoming. Switch off radar. ARM can't destroy radar, radar
can't see strike aircraft/second wave of missles incoming. If radar
lights up to look, loitering ARM turns it off again...permenently...
This would require missles w/ greater fuel capacity than most
have...some
sort of Tomahawk-mod, in modern terms. In space, no feul is needed to
loiter, really, so the missle makes even more sense...deadly, tho...I can see
people not liking them...
> -Yes, missiles can switch targets. However, there are two
This missle I read about was either in PopSci or PopMech mags, and I don't
know whether it was merely a paper concept or what...just paper, I suspect, as
I've heard nothing since...
(Speaking of PopSci/Mech, has anyone else read the latest thing on
semi-autonomous, cheap, camera-mounting drones...SG 2, anyone?)
Just my $0.02...
> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Earl D. Hansen wrote:
fire
> control radar.
According to Newton, fuel *would* be required for loitering in space. It takes
fuel to slow down to loiter in the vicinity of the target, as well as to
accelerate again when the radar lights up again.
- Sam
> I remember reading, a few years back, of an Anti-Radiation Cruise
I have heard of US military tests of similar systems for breaking massed
armour assaults which include some amount of loiter time over the MPI (Mean
Point of Impact) for the clustered submunitions giving them time to acquire a
target and to assure they didn't acquire the same target as another
submunition. Now those are smart missiles that might be feasible in the next
ten to fifteen years. Imagine a few hundred into the future.
GDW in its 2300 AD ship combat system proposed a paradigm for space
combat where the main combat component was a semi-intelligent, user
directed missile which was much like a bastardy of RPV (drone) and
missile - it loitered around, fired, had fuel to maneuver, was
smaller than a conventional fighter and didn't include life support
or a pilot - now you'd think that this would be very succeptible to
ECM on the other hand. These missiles are used as sort of fighters, recce
vehicles, and conventional shipkillers combined. Nasty.
If you remember Star Fleet Battles has a concept of a Captor Mine
which is of some interest too - an intelligent mine that is basically
a weapons platform which can either be command activated or set for
target profiles - mean mean mean. Not something you want an assault
to run into (especially if you can set it to stay EM invisible and passive and
only engage capital ships or transports....)
> (Speaking of PopSci/Mech, has anyone else read the latest thing on
Might give you some kind of "peak at enemy counters" or make spotting rolls at
same (a la airborne unit spotting rules) in advance of entry
or during the scenario if you have an RPV deployed - of course
accurate modern AA missiles (The Stinger 2250 or whatever you wish to call it)
might make short work of such RPVs. Or even a good old direct fire plasma gun
fired accurately....
/************************************************
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.980121143546.16356A-
100000@ccins.camosun.bc.ca>, Brian Burger <burger00@camosun.bc.ca> writes
> I remember reading, a few years back, of an Anti-Radiation Cruise
The idea for allowing the missile to loiter came from the British ALARM
missile. The ALARM can do this by shooting up to 20,000 ft the deploying a
parachute and then searching for a radiation source.
However, an anti radiation missile sitting in space waiting for a target would
be easy prey for *DAF, C batteries and fighters.(or if you wanted to be really
sure, you could fire a nova cannon at it:)).
> -Yes, missiles can switch targets. However, there are two
The US HARM missile can be fired to do something like this, although I can't
find my Harpoon data annex to find out for sure.
<snip some stuff about loitering missles>
> The idea for allowing the missile to loiter came from the British ALARM
It seems to me that with even current technology that it would be possible to
triangulate the location of a ground based radar when the missle is
launched. Thus it is irrelevant if the radar is switched off - the
missle simply tracks to the last known position and explodes. If the radar
stays on, so much the better (or worse, depending on you position)...
Even the difference in heading between a pilot and his wingman would likely be
enough to get within 10m, depending on the distance to target. If, not, you
could probably substitute the warhead with a cluster of bomblets to increase
the effected radius. It seems to me that radar and the radar vehicle
would be quite fragile (comared to say - an M1A1 MBT), so a direct hit
would not be necessary. An AWACS type craft would only serve to increase the
initial position accuracy.
> -Yes, missiles can switch targets. However, there are two
This would likely not be the desired effect. You would like to think that a
pilot would choose his targets carefully (ie those that pose the biggest
threat). Once the target has been designated and the missle fired, you would
not want the missle to go after something else, especially when you know that
the radar will go back online once the missle has passed. This is one reason
that in flightsims I usually prefer Maverics to HARMs for anti-radar
work -
they stay on target better through optical guidance. Unfortunately, in real
life I believe Mavs are substancially more expensive.
> Paladin
So what does all this mean for anti-radar missle simulation in wargames?
That it would be reasonable to have a system that has effectiveness based on
the distance to target when the radar is swtiched off, assuming missle fire is
not instantaneous. If the fire is instantaneous, then the missle should just
hit the target as normal, since the radar couldn't be turned off in time.
The "loitering" HARM is the Tacit Rainbow. It's got a small jet turbine in it,
(same as the Cruise missle) once it's booster burns out it switches to jet
mode. IIRC, during the Persian Gulf one actually played tag with an Iraqie
mobile radar, the Iraqies turned the radar off every time the missle went
inbound, then turned it back on expecting the missle to have flown
by....... I
was told the missle was circling the radar unit at about 1/2 mile when a
pair
of F-16's rolled in and bombed the site just to put it out of thier
misery.
As for using the same idea in space, it wouldn't work, fuel and power
requirements would push the thing into being at least the size of a fighter,
probably bigger, and cruiseing within range of a ships defenses would make it
an easy kill.
Speaking of fighters, how about giving them the equivilent of a needle beam
attack against FireCons? This would represent fighters equiped with HARMS
closing to range and surpressing the enemy fire control sensors.
comments?
Randy
> Sutherland wrote:
Later versions may, I repeat may, dead-reckon velocity. As the H in HARM
stands for High-Speed, this means that you get a small PH even vs a
manoeuvring ship, providing it's large.
British Aerospace's ALARM missile is a bit slower, not so high a range, but
arches up, then gently floats down from a parachute. So you have to
> In a message dated 98-01-23 22:32:27 EST, Randy wrote:
> Speaking of fighters, how about giving them the equivilent of a needle
> comments?
> Randy
Ohh, I like this. Howzabout:
Wild Weasel Squadron: Wild Weasel fighters are Attack fighters with an even
more specialized role. They are equipped with special sensors, ECM, and
weapons designed to
destroy the fire-control sensors of enemy ships, so when engaging an
enemy ship each fighter will hit and destroy a firecon with a roll of 5 or 6.
Due to this specialization, ' Weasels
are easy meat for enemy fighters, able to hit only on a 6. Points: +12
(2 per fighter)
Note the point cost is a WAG, so play with it a bit. If anything it may be a
bit low. Also, depending on your particular backround (and the PSB that comes
with it) you may allow the ' Weasels to attack "emitter" type systems such as
shield generators, sub-light drives, alpha-nodes, warp-coils, whatever.
I'd suggest that to hit the fighters have to roll a 6 for these systems (the
points may have to be bumped up as well).
Don
> Thomas Heaney wrote:
Bad news for the bad guys, the HARM not only locks onto the source, but it
remembers where it is, so even if the source goes away the missile never
forgets. Sort of like being stepped on by an elephant!!
Bye for now,
> Shld Wulf wrote:
]...Snip...(JTL)
> Speaking of fighters, how about giving them the equivilent of a needle
1) I can only suggest that the size of the ships would get
smaller fast.
2) The concept of multiple six dice needle beam
attacks against the capitals would speed play a great deal.
> Bad news for the bad guys, the HARM not only locks onto the
Yes but we are assuming that the source does not move. If you are trying to
hit a radar system on a ship and the ship no longer radiates and then moves,
remembering the location does not help much.
> Shld Wulf wrote:
Remember that the "Ace" pilot rules already in MT allow an Ace to make a
selective (needle-style) attack against a single ship system if he
wishes. Not as effective as allowing a whole group to do it, true, but I
thought I'd point out that the rule already exists in one form.
In a message dated 98-01-24 22:16:54 EST, you write:
<< > Bad news for the bad guys, the HARM not only locks onto the
> source, but it remembers where it is, so even if the source goes
Yes but we are assuming that the source does not move. If you are trying to
hit a radar system on a ship and the ship no longer radiates and then moves,
remembering the location does not help much.
> [quoted text omitted]
ALARM can deal with this since it loiters. This is especially effective agains
against modern SP AAM systems. It does however, have a limited duration. But
the results is the same, weither the opponents radars is off or destroyed: its
no longer operational.
Its a system that could be of great use in DSII.
In Full Thrust the loiter time would not be limited (no parachutes, no
gravity). It would mean launching a missle that would stay motionless on the
tabletop until a designated target (or target of similiar profile becomes
active). It could be interesting, but it could also open up a whole new bag of
cheese.
In a message dated 98-01-25 06:17:36 EST, you write:
<< >1) I can only suggest that the size of the ships would get
> smaller fast.
Remember that the "Ace" pilot rules already in MT allow an Ace to make a
selective (needle-style) attack against a single ship system if he
wishes. Not as effective as allowing a whole group to do it, true, but I
thought I'd point out that the rule already exists in one form.
Jon (GZG)
Designating one craft in a squadron a Wild Weasel actually makes more sense.
In modern combat usually one or two weasel accompany a larger number of attack
aircraft. They're far too few, vunerable and exspensive to send out alone.