One problem that I see with integrating EW into FT3 is that none of GZG's
published designs have these systems. This doesn't mean you can't build them
into your own designs but you should consider why ships of the GZGverse don't.
The rational could be that those systems are flawed, so if you are designing
EW systems they should not be a perfect counter to other weapon systems. For
example there has been discussion about defining area effect ECM as extending
the apparent range of ships within its' effect, making them harder to hit,
this is the candle in the searchlight analogy. Of course if the candle is hard
to see and hit, the searchlight is likewise easier to hit. Ships that carry
this type of ECM have a short life and are unpopular as an assignment.
> For example there has been discussion about defining area effect ECM
True, if you have ECM active, everyone will know you are there, but if I have
a very high power searchlight (ECM) and shine it in your face (ECM active),
you'd have a tough time shooting at me even though you knew the general area
where I was. The 'searchlight' blinds you with the intense radiation and your
usual targeting sensors would be getting in so much info, you can't tell
exactly where your target is.
That is at least how I see EW in this analogy:) Area ECM ships may become the
target of more fire but then all of the ships they are protecting are firing
away at the attacking ships.
> Dean Gundberg wrote
I would know your exact location as *you* are the searchlight
The 'searchlight' blinds you with the intense
> radiation and your usual targeting sensors would be getting in so much
Unless you can feed info from your search sensors (who now know the exact
location of the ECM active ship) to correct the garbage the target sensors are
getting
> That is at least how I see EW in this analogy :) Area ECM ships may
This is probably tactically correct, but the heart of my orginal post was not
how effective ECM could be, but that it should have a flaw, otherwise it
becomes the 'holy grail'. All designs are therefore incomplete without an ECM
system. So where does that leave all the published designs? The flaw could be
as I suggested before, area ECM ships become vunerable or they also interfere
with the targetting sensors of some or all the ships they are 'protecting', to
something as radical as the fact that to put out enough energy to seriously
disrupt sensors over an area you may need something in the order of a
sustained EM pulse. Which, if not dangerous to nearby ships, could be very
nasty for the ship using it.
***
This is probably tactically correct, but the heart of my orginal post was not
how effective ECM could be, but that it should have a flaw, otherwise it
becomes the 'holy grail'. All designs are therefore incomplete without an ECM
system. So where does that leave all the published designs?
***
Once again, speaking without fully thinking out the implications, may I
suggest that the optional EW rules be written such that the current designs
have SOME ECM intrinsically?
I really must start bringing my rule books to work sometime.
The_Beast
> ***
By that logic we should leave ECM out and never look at new systems. All that
is required is for FB3 and or FT 3rd Ed to give each group a few Scout type
designs. What we are discussing here is (hopefully) finding a way that works
easily with FT that can go in FB3 or FT 3rd or give Mr.GZG an idea that lets
him set something
up for these systems. Personally, I liked the ping-pong balls. I
have some at home set to go on my bases.
> ***
replying to above The_Beast wrote;
> Once again, speaking without fully thinking out the implications, may I
I think this would be the easiest to implement. There is an understated power
allocation system inherent in the FT system where ships are able to divert
power from guns and manouvre drive and put it to FTL drive. Surely, running
silent, at least, would consist of not assigning power to any system, and
thereby gaining some advantages of increased effective range to potential
firers, along lines that have previously been suggested.
Similarly, diverting the power from the guns etc, and putting it through the
sensors would enable active effects. One such ability might be to illuminate
an enemy ship to make it easier to target. Another such ability might along
the lines of an SFB wild weasel, that attracts salvo missiles within 6". This
may be result in a better interpretation of the 'banzai jammer' as a
escort vessel lights itself up (the crew rushing to life-boats) and
permit smarter missile seeker rules (eg; based on target size, with wild
weasels looking larger).
For other functions; might it be possible to jam fighters, or torpedoes, or
shields, or ADFC?
This way the published designs stand. The EW actions become additional options
open to the spaceships. Possibly becoming more useful as the ship is shot up,
and becomes concerned with its personal survival.
> Once again, speaking without fully thinking out the implications, may
I suppose you could give all design an intrinsinc superior ECM. Then other
subsequent designs could have less or no ECM for a reduced cost. You would
have to decided what part of the design process you could have a sliding scale
for and what system has the ECM as part of it, so its loss would also lose ECM
capability.
> By that logic we should leave ECM out and never look at new systems.
I've always felt that ECM and ECCM, along with the rest of EW, should simply
be combined into one system: Electronics (or whatever you want to call it).
On 12-Apr-00 at 18:15, Andrew.Kelman@agso.gov.au
(Andrew.Kelman@agso.gov.au) wrote: >
> >***
Surely,
> running silent, at least, would consist of not assigning power to any
No, no, please no. Please forget you ever saw power allocation in SFB. Please
forget such a thing ever existed. I like FT as a fleet game and don't ever
want to see it get to the level of power allocation.
Personally, I thought the jump limitation was because as the jump field builds
it totally disrupts fire control and it also has inertia, if you try to turn
the ship when the jump occurs your ship will reappear spread over several
light years. (When someone else is in the jump field similar things happen.)
> On 12-Apr-00 at 22:50, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:
I've been leaning that way myself. It still leaves the question "What can you
do with it?"
> I've been leaning that way myself. It still leaves the question "What
Detect farther. Mislead on ship size. Affect combat. (I'm a fan of using a
"screen" or old K'V armour like mechanic, rather than fiddling with ranges.)