Haven't played with any yet, but discussed with gaming group over lotsa beer:)
*** Disclaimer *** All critiques meant to be constructive and friendly,
nothing intended to be personal or negative.
General impressions are:
Hull rows: Could be potentially very powerful. Reduced number of threshold
checks will significantly increase weapon availability and major reduction in
core systems failure if core systems option used. Instead of an increase in
the value of each hull box, perhaps a mutiplier to the value of the whole
ship. E.g. compute value of ship as normal, then
multiply by 1.1 (or 1.2, 1.25, 1.3, or whatever, or 0.9, etc. for 5- or
6-rows). This might better reflect altered system survivablity.
Superships might take advantage of 5 or 6 row hulls to reduce costs
(when you have 200-300 hull, the extra row isn't that big a handicap).
This could be a problem for cheese players.
Anti-Matter Missiles:
Two points. 1) Instead of a new missile system with questionable PSB, we would
rather see an expansion of salvo missile systems into a comprehensive
family like Beams, PBLs, and K-Guns. For example: SMLs are rated with
2 numbers. The first represents the number of tubes and the second represents
the size of the missiles launched in terms of warhead
strength, e.g. FB1 SML = SML:6/1 = 6 missiles w/ 1-die warhead. Extant
designs are unchanged, but player can choose 6/1, 4/2, 3/3, or 2/5 for
the current designs (same MASS). Also MASS scale for other sizes eg
3/1, 9/1, 12/1, etc. Missiles extend range at expense of warhead
strength or can increase warhead strength at expense of range without
increasing salvo MASS.
2) Strong and universal response of "not another *!@#$%^ placed marker
missile". We all feel that the placed-marker missile and the "roll a
die to determine number of successful lock-on" are the two worst game
mechanics in FT. Would like to see a change to either a single turn
MT-style ordnance or direct fire mechanic. Also would like to see
to-hit rolls for each missile (like 2+ at 1 MU).
Grasers: Several points; 1), 2) and 4) reflect our interest in the "generic"
nature of FT.
1) If FB3 needs a "long range beam", how about a set of MASS/cost
figures for 6- and 18 MU range bands for regular beam batteries instead
of "grasers"?
2) If FB3 needs a "heavy beam" or a "high damage beam", we would
rather see something with the to-hit/damage mechanic of the EFSB beam
in a single-component system. I.e. one icon with class giving # dice
to roll; no capacitor, charging, or charge tracking; system fully cycles
between game turns. Could be in a range of ranges, e.g.
MASS/cost figures for 6-, 9-, 12-, and 18 MU range band versions.
Perhaps a scary 12- or 18- MU variable strength SV version (works good
for Vorlons and Shadows too:)).
3) If we are commited to the "Graser" concept, we always saw the standard
battery rerolls as internal secondaries rather than additional hits. We would
recomend that "additional hits" be fully affected by screens, and additional
damage by allowing a penetrating reroll on a *damage roll* of a "6".
4) If we are commited to the "Graser" concept, how about a more
generic name that reflects its relation to the beam/pulsar/stinger
family. "Graser", "Maser", "Mason gun/accelerator", etc. are too
setting specific.
5) We actually have used a similar mechanic for B5 plasma weapons:
Used 3-pointed B5W "Light Plasma Cannon" icon outline (also in W/D
Archive http://nift.firedrake.org/genre/WDA-Babylon5.htm#PlasCannon )
with class number in icon. Figure dice as for standard beam battery but with 6
MU RBs. Not affected by screens. Each "hit" is treated as a seperate pulse
torpedo hit. High damage, short range.
UNSC ship designs: These were designed bythe same person or commitee that did
the other human fleets, right? Sigh. It would have been nice if we could get
away from the "two largest capital ships have a couple of fighter groups no
matter the background blurb" and the "collection of ships rather than a
coordinated fleet" syndromes which aflict all human, KV and Phaln ship
designs.
J
[quoted original message omitted]
> Jared wrote:
> 4) If we are commited to the "Graser" concept,
With all the caveats, it doesn't sound like you want to change the
graser, it sounds like your group doesn't even _like_ it and wants it
replaced with an entirely new weapon system. While the weapon system you
suggest sounds interesting, is there any particular reason your group doesn't
like the graser, given that you haven't even tried it yet?
> how about a more
I haven't read any of the fiction where the term "graser" comes from. The name
never struck me as being setting specific.
I did a quick Google search and found a number of sites that list a "graser"
as a "gamma ray laser". In fact, the Photonics Dictionary
(http://www.photonics.com/directory/XQ/ASP/QX/index.htm) gave the
definition as, "An acronym of gamma ray amplification by stimulated emission
of radiation. It is a gamma ray laser that operates between energy levels
established by metastable isomeric transitions in the nucleus."
This is an industry site, not a sci-fi site. It sounds as though
"graser" is as generic a term as "laser".
> These were designed bythe same person or commitee that did the other
No. No, they weren't. As far as I can recall, Jon T. did all the FB1 and FB2
ship designs, and Dean did the UNSC with input from other playtest list
members, but little to no input from Jon.
> It would have been nice if we could get
What would make a "coordinated fleet" in your opinion? How do the UNSC ships
not work together, or what is missing? What would you like to see a
"coordinated fleet" look like?
I agree with your comment about the fighters. I think I would actually have
preferred the UNSC to avoid fighters altogether. My understanding is that
there will be at least one new fleet that's "fighter heavy" compared to
existing FB fleets. There may be another new fleet that will be "fighter
light", but I can't be sure as I tend to focus more on the SG2 side of things.
Your criticism stands, but it could very well be that another fleet will fit
that bill.
> Haven't played with any yet, but discussed with gaming group over
Good beer I hope ;-)
> *** Disclaimer ***
Thanks for the feedback, that is why they were posted. My reply's are my
opinion and not inteded to speak for Jon T, GZG or the rest of the
Playtesters. No offense is intended, just answers and questions related to
your comments.
> General impressions are:
If a version of CPV is implemented, this would be an expensive ship and cheese
players would start avoiding ships of this size and larger. We will see.
> Anti-Matter Missiles:
Extant
> designs are unchanged, but player can choose 6/1, 4/2, 3/3, or 2/5 for
Interesting. Not all the playtesters like the current version of the AMT (and
there have been quite a few) so we will see how it ends up.
> 2) Strong and universal response of "not another *!@#$%^ placed
On the other hand I have heard comments that FT is weak in that it lacks
weapons that force players to manuever (this was mainly pre FB1) so they would
not like another direct fire weapon. The AMT is only a placed marker weapon,
there is no lock on roll. Sometimes area effect weapons are needed keep
players honest and not bunching up. Salvo missiles cause target fleets to get
close and add bonzai jammers, this weapon like the Phalon Plasma Bolt keeps
players from beeing too close together.
> Grasers:
Yes that keeps things more generic but another common 'bash' against FT is
that it is TOO generic. A heavier type of beam is common in sci-fi
universes and this is an attempt at modeling it so that it has a different
feel from the common beam battery but still uses existing dice mechanics.
> 2) If FB3 needs a "heavy beam" or a "high damage beam", we would
There are some problems with the EFSB Heavy Beam mechanic, it is a bit too
good close up and it has problems when dealing with screens and we didn't
want another screen-skipping weapon. Versions of this weapon were
looked at in the developent of the Graser.
> 3) If we are commited to the "Graser" concept, we always saw the
Why does a "hit" have to be a single point? I still see re-rolls as
internal hits/extra damage/lucky shots. But then because the Graser is
more
powerful, each 'hit' does 1-6 points of damage. In playtesting at the
ECC there were concerns about the power of the Graser, usually after a good
set
of beam rolls to-hit and re-rolls followed by average or above damage
rolls. Looking how it performed overall, it was quite average with lots of
missed shots and low damage hits. The graser just has the potential to do lots
of damage if the dice fall a certain way.
> 4) If we are commited to the "Graser" concept, how about a more
It could change.
> UNSC ship designs:
I did the designs based off of what is seen on the mini, some input from Jon,
and base ideas from Derek Fulton. Yes, a fighter group was included in the
largest ships because these ships were supposed to be from the same universe
as the ships from FB1 so naturally they would be similar in some ways. The
SDNs only have one group
unlike most of the other FB1 races though ;-)
> and the
Like others have said, I'm interested in your take on how you define a
'coordinated fleet'.
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> *** Disclaimer ***
And my comments are intended in the same fashion.
> Hull rows:
Yes. That's why 3-row hulls cost more than 4-row hulls.
> Instead of an increase in the value of each hull box, perhaps a
This was tried, but it was discarded since it turned out to work no better
than changing the value of each hull box. (It moved the main problem area
from the screen/hull interaction to the armour/hull interaction, but
didn't
reduce either the magnitude or the frequency of the problems - quite the
contrary, particularly for Phalon-style multi-layer armour.)
> Superships might take advantage of 5 or 6 row hulls to reduce costs
Changing a 200-box hull from 4 to 5 rows is roughly equivalent to
removing
around 25-30 of its hull boxes; I leave it to you to decide how
significant
that handicap is :-/ If anything the 5-row hull is very slightly
overpriced
compared to the 3-, 4- and 6-row ones. (Not enough to show up in the
playtests to date since we've mostly tested the variable-hull concept on
ships in the Fleet Book size range, but when you get up to 200-300 hull
boxes per ship it could potentially start to become significant. Of course,
it wouldn't be the only balance problem with very large ships :-/ )
> Anti-Matter Missiles:
The AMT isn't exactly "a new missile system". It is a cross between two
missile systems that were around before FB1 introduced the Salvo
Missiles :-/
That said, I too would've preferred the AMT to be an SM variant (specifically
the Nova Salvo Missile that was thoroughly hashed out on this list a year or
two ago, see
<http://nift.firedrake.org/weapons/WDA-Missiles.htm#NovaSM>);
but Jon wants to get the EFSB "energy mine" damage mechanic into FT and I
haven't been able to talk him out of it :-/
(BTW Dean, it is "banzai jammers", not "bonsai jammers". You very rarely
have to jam miniature trees, after all ;-) )
> lFor example: SMLs are rated with 2 numbers. The first represents the
Again this run into the problem with munchkins figuring out the optimal
launcher configuration very quickly - very similar to the flexible
carrier design systems discussed in the other ongoing thread.
In this particular case, assuming that your sample new launcher designs use
D4s, D3s and D2s respectively to determine the number of missiles on
target, all the new ones are significantly better than the standard 6/1
SML against lightly defended targets (inflicting on average between 30% and
110% more damage per salvo depending on the exact type used), and only fall
down to the standard SML's level or less when the target has enough PDS
available that the missiles aren't much of a threat anyway (4+ PDSs per
incoming salvo
for the 4/2 and 3/3 variants, 3+ PDSs per salvo for the 2/5 one). With
other lock-on mechanics than a single die per salvo you get different
results, of course.
> 2) Strong and universal response of "not another *!@#$%^ placed
The MT-style ordnance *is* a placed-marker missile, albeit with more
restricted placement options than the Fleet Book salvo missiles and plasma
bolts...
> or direct fire mechanic.
Cf. Dean's comment about systems which force ships to manoeuvre instead of
just line up and shoot at one another.
> Also would like to see to-hit rolls for each missile (like 2+ at 1
IOW you want to roll 6 dice per salvo to determine the lock-on, instead
of a single die?
> Grasers:
Could be done for Class-3 beams and larger, but if you want to do it for
Class-1s and -2s you need to deal in fractional Mass values - something
we'd very much prefer to avoid.
(The fractional *point* values for 5-row hulls discussed above are bad
enough, and the only reason they made it into beta at all was that the
players would ask about them anyway when 4-row hulls are 2pts/box and
6-row
hulls are 1 pt/box.)
> 2) If FB3 needs a "heavy beam" or a "high damage beam", we would
The original intent with the graser was in fact to copy the EFSB heavy beam
straight away, but it proved impractical for three reasons:
1) Many players dislike the EFSB heavy beam mechanic because it hits
automatically at close range - unlike all other weapons in FT (and
EFSB), the heavy beam has literally *no* chance of missing at range 6mu or
less
since you can't roll less than "1" on a D6. Extending the range bands to 12 or
18 mu is unlikely to make the weapon any more acceptable to these players.
2) Another common player complaint about new weapon types is "Yet *another*
screen-skipping weapon? How boring...". The EFSB heavy beam mechanic as
it is currently written is ignores "screens" (ie. EFSB "interceptors"), and it
is difficult to add screen which aren't completely negligible yet which
don't cripple the weapon completely against level-1 screens.
3) The EFSB heavy beam mechanic has a very heavy punch at close range, but it
weakens very rapidly as the range increases. Since Full Thrust already
has quite a few weapons with high punch at point-blank range but short
effective range (B1, B2, Pulser-C, P-torp), adding yet another such
system isn't very high on the priority list. Of course the G1 is yet another
such weapon, but it isn't the main reason for introducing the graser family
:-/
The larger grasers OTOH are the exact opposite to the EFSB beam - they
can inflict serious damage at *long* range, but it doesn't gain very much
power types when the range falls.
> 3) If we are commited to the "Graser" concept, we always saw the
This introduces new game mechanics instead of just recycling old ones, makes
the weapon even more wildly unpredictable than it already is (a
feature several players have already complained/warned about), and also
changes the screen balance - the current graser mechanic dove-tails into
the existing beam-screen balance. I'm not entirely convinced that any of
these drawbacks would be a reasonable price to pay for improving one possible
PSB interpretation of what the game mechanic represents, much less
all three of them :-/
> 4) If we are commited to the "Graser" concept, how about a more
You mean like "Pulse Torpedo", "Plasma Bolt", "Salvo Missile",
"Sub-Munition Pack", "Kinetic Gun" etc.? "Graser" is no more setting
specific than any of these; Weber - author of the Honor Harrington
series -
nicked it from today's industrial terminology. IMO it is also no more PSB
specific than some of these types, particularly the "Salvo Missile" and
"Sub-Munition Pack"... and of course the first thing that happens when
FT is adapted to a specific background is that the names of the weapons
change :-/
Later,
> ----- Original Message -----
> --- Star Ranger <dean@star-ranger.com> wrote:
Well, you matched the "feel" of the FB1 designs well enough that I couldn't
tell the diff.:)
> Yes, a fighter group was included in the largest ships because these
The fighter thing is kind of a hold-over gripe from FB1.
For example: the NAC blurb says: "Fighter operations doctrine is to base them
on specialized carriers which rely on supporting escort ships for their
defence" and the NSL blurb says: "Fighter operations are based around small
numbers carried on the largest general combat ships rather than specific
carrier designs".
Reading these two lines, I would expect that the NAC Excalibur and Valley
forge would have no fighters, while the NSL would have fighters on the BB and
maybe a BC as well.
When we initially got FB1, the first thing we wanted to do was put together a
couple of small battle squadrons and test the changes to the existing rules.
We wanted to start simple, and looked to avoid fighters and SMs until the
second or third game. Instead, we found
that all of the -dreadnought classes carried fighters an several also
carried SMs, even for powers that generally don't use SM's.
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> ---and Dean wrote:
A "collection of ships" ship designs are ships designed to operate
independently and which can be grouped together to make operational units.
A "coordinated fleet" is one were the different ships fulfill different roles,
so that together they complement each other, the whole being greater than the
sum of its parts kind of thing.
Real world examples would be that a fleet carrier is primarily designed to
operate aircraft, and a battleship to directly project firepower.
Both are vulnerable to anti-shipping missiles and submarines. Even
though they have basic capabilities in these areas (sonar, ASROC, CIWS), they
are not capable of surviving a concentrated attack by these means. However,
when operated in concert with dedicated ASW and SAM ships, the CV and BB are
capable of taking care of any "leakers" that get through the heavy defense
provided by these other ships.
For the AF types, a similar analogy can be made to fighters escorting
bombers or strike fighters. The fighter/interceptors and Wild Weasels
provide cover against enemy fighters and ground threats while the
bombers and/or strike fighters conduct their operations.
Essentially, ships can be divided into six basic categories.
1) Capital Ships. These are designed to project power by engaging and
destroying enemy ships in squadron and/or fleet actions.
2) Fleet Escorts. These are designed to escort capital ships, providing
specialized capabilities to protect both themselves and other
ships from threats. This includes Anti-fighter and anti-missile
capabilities as well as speed and weapons to drive off enemy Escorts and Fast
Attack types which threaten their charges. Might come in a range of sizes
(small, medium, large) as well as a variety of specialties.
3) Space Escorts/Patrol Ships. These are designed to escort merchant
ships and convoys as well as to patrol trade routes and system spaces. They
may be less capable than Fleet escorts as they are not intended to keep pace
with battle groups.
4) Cruising Ships. These ships are designed to cruise independently
or in concert with a few escorts. They are used to "show the flag" where a
battle squadron is not warranted, for scouting, harassment, and commerce
raiding. Due to the expectation of longer periods of independent operations,
they must be more general in design than Capital or Escort types.
5) Fast Attack. These ships are generally smaller, but pack a heavy
punch in the form of missiles, sub-munition packs, MKPs, pulse torps,
etc. They fill the roles of wet navy TB, MTB, PT, PCG, etc.
6) System defense/offense. Heavy armament and defenses, but not
necessarily capable of fleet actions. Def. types includes STL monitors and
system patrol ships, while off. types include older or less capable capitals,
bombardment ships, etc.
I did not include carriers as a separate type. Instead, carriers fit one (or
more) of the above categories but simply have fighters as their main weapon
system rather than beams, guns or missiles. With this in mind, fighters on any
other type of ship are also just another weapon or defensive system helping
the ship fulfill its mission. E.g. a capital with a group or two of
interceptors could use them as an additional active defense system, i.e.
protecting it from incoming fighters and ordnance.
Almost all of the FB designs are either Capital, Cruising, or Fast Attack.
Even there, the Capitals and Cruising ships are not designed for group
(squadron) operations. Take any FB Capital design (BC, BB, BDN, SDN, CV) and
include a single ADFC on each ship. A squadron of these becomes much more
effective than a squadron of the same number of unmodified designs.
There is no FB ship really designed for the Fleet Escort role. Such a
design needs either significant PDS/ADFC/class 1 capability for
fighter/ordnance defense and/or medium weapons for dealing with other
escorts and FA designs.
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
Depending on how the UNSC is envisioned, this is probably the only
Fleet that would not use Space/Escort types, leaving that to the
individual powers.
The next question is does the UNSC operate its ships as a conventional battle
fleet or as small cruising squadrons? If the latter, then it would consist of
Cruising Capitals, Cruising Escorts, and Independent Cruisers, all of various
sizes. Cruising ships should avoid ammunition based weapons like missiles, but
need to provide their own fighters. If they operate in battle groups, then the
designs would consist of Capitals, Fleet Escorts, and Fleet Cruisers.
Munitions can be used more freely as they have regular access to tenders and
make frequent calls at fleet bases.
I envision a "Cruising Squadron" to be 1-4 cruising capitals with 4-8
cruising escorts, while independent cruisers would operate as singles or
pairs.
A "Battle Group" would consist of squadrons of capital ships (4-8 each)
with 1-3 squadrons of fleet escorts assigned to each battle squadron.
One or more squadrons of fleet cruisers might be assigned to the group as
needed as scouts or long range picket ships.
J
In message <6.0.3.0.1.20040312170719.042a5070@m1.853.telia.com>
> Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
[snip]
> >Anti-Matter Missiles:
I also would like for the AMTs to be a variant of either the SML or MT
Missile systems - also, I don't see why Jon's 'e-mine' mechanic could
be used as a variant load out for SMs or MTMs (in fact, IIRC, the
original proposal for the Nova Salvo Missile, the "Anti-Matter Salvo
Missile" [WotW #1 IIRC] did use an e-mine like mechanic).
Having ATMs as variant SMs or MTMs would make them more versatile as well, as
the launcher could be loaded with other types if required.
[snip]
> Later,
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:13:58 +0000 agoodall@att.net writes:
I save that for people 'intellectually unarmed' because I have been sliced,
diced, and shredded by people MUCH better at it then I am. There was this
classmate of mine, she had a tongue sharper then the
switchblades of the gang-bangers... but I digress. Let's just say I
was less violated by the switchblades I saw from the wrong side then by her
acid laced verbal skewering.
> Seriously, though, I agree with you to a large degree. There isn't
I suspect if we ever get to that point (I personally doubt it but that's just
me and my wacky religious beliefs) I suspect it won't look like anything we
have envisioned today. FTL alone should put past assumptions about space
combat on their ear. Maybe something like the old SPI space board game where
the psionic gifted crew 'pictured' the ship jumping through space. One spilt
second 'here', the next somewhere over 'there'
!
> The problem is that the "space navy" concept has been around since...
Actually I do accept that sine I remember reading in the mid to late 1950's
Andre Norton SF (can't even find most of it today) and the in the background
models there seemed 'space navy' based. As a certain literary character said,
"Tradition!" I expect Jules Verne and contemporaries used sailing models for
their space travel (except for the men shot to the moon by a cannon??) so it
may have sprung from that model?
> For what it's worth, it doesn't _really_ play out like WW1 or WW2
Okay, I stand corrected. Maybe I should have said it seems more like WW1 or
WW2 naval wargames then naval warfare. <grin> A much more tenuous 'reality'.
> FT, though, is artificial. It always astounds me when people start
He he, Well it is science __fiction__...
> That having been said, it's a fun game. I personally wish you could
Now you've done it. <grin> I am still trying to work 1:6K ships into my war
game budget (I have a current whopping total of four) and now some evil genius
will be thinking "...Fleets of 1:6K spaceships..." and making my overstretched
war game budget strain to fill another addiction!
> --
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:10:09 +0100 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip> ROFLOL!
> (BTW Dean, it is "banzai jammers", not "bonsai jammers". You very
"Captain, Two Blue Spruce and a Redwood uncloaking on the starboard quarter!"
Okay, I'm a sicko... I admit it.
Gracias,
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 04:23:25PM -0600, warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> Maybe something like the old SPI space
I would dearly love to game the battle scenes from David Brin's
_Startide Rising_. But I strongly suspect I'd have to write so much to
make it work that whatever game system I'd started with would be
unrecognisable...
R
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 04:33:36PM -0600, warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> "Captain, Two Blue Spruce and a Redwood uncloaking on the starboard
Seen _Tenchi Muyo_? :-)
I have a question,
If you have a ship when designed that has less the 4 hull rows, like many of
the smaller navy vessal, Scout and Corvettes, will it change the cost of
these?
Have a Good One,
> DOC Agren wrote:
> If you have a ship when designed that has less the 4 hull rows, like
If the CPV system is adopted, virtually all ships will have their costs
changed.
If the CPV system is not adopted, the variable hull row rule will be adjusted
to leave the cost of the current small ships unchanged.
Regards,
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> I also would like for the AMTs to be a variant of either the SML or MT
IIRC the WotW discussion about it also gave several reasons for toning it
down from "E-mine style" to "level-2 Plasma Bolt". Those reasons still
apply :-/
Later,
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 12:57:28AM -0500, DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
See Oerjan's post at
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00192.html. In short, yes; if
you only _have_ 3 or fewer hull rows because you don't have enough boxes
to put one in the others, you ought to pay for it.
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
Reguarding boxes and hull row equality -
This is an unfortunite choice (Paying for 'unused' hull rows), as it will
drive the game to larger ships. This has been a problem in the past and may
come back to 'chew' ones 'thoughfulness' once again.
Bye for now,
> John Leahy wrote:
> >In short, yes; if
You don't pay for "unused" hull rows. You pay for each hull box the ship
actually has; and since the ship has less than 4 hull boxes (and therefore
less than 4 hull rows) each of those boxes costs extra to compensate for
the *advantages* of never having to take the 3rd threshold check and not
having to waste any Mass on hull boxes in the relatively useless 4th hull row.
IOW, a ship with 2 hull boxes pays the 3-row cost for each box, ie. 3
pts per box; thus it pays 2*3 = 6 pts for its hull integrity.
> as it will drive the game to larger ships.
When people complain about "larger ships" being overly powerful, they
usually think about ships of TMF 100 and above - often quite far above.
The change discussed here mostly affects ships with TMF 12 and less, though
weak-hulled ships (eg. the Phalon escorts) can be a bit larger; the
largest
legal ship affected by it is a Fragile-hulled TMF 34 destroyer or small
freighter. (TMF 35 and larger ships must have at least 4 hull boxes, so are
allowed to use 4-row hulls if they want to.)
At most this change might "drive" some players from using *very* small ships
(corvettes and strikeboats) to using small ships (frigates and destroyers);
but there is no risk whatsoever that it will drive anyone to
use more *large* ships :-/
Regards,
In a message dated 3/14/04 2:00:48 AM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
<< From: Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org>
Subject: Re: UNSC beta and FB3
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 12:57:28AM -0500, DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
See Oerjan's post at
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00192.html. In short, yes; if
you only _have_ 3 or fewer hull rows because you don't have enough boxes
to put one in the others, you ought to pay for it.
Roger >>
Which will force a redesign some of the of the canon Scout and Corvettes. I'm
almost wondering if there should not be a Mass 10 cut off where under which
the penalty for having less than 4 hull boxes isn't applied.
Have a Good One,
ME
Roger
> you only _have_ 3 or fewer hull rows because you don't have enough
DOCAgren
> Which will force a redesign some of the of the canon Scout and
It's not a penalty, and it won't force a redesign. It might require changing
the points cost, but we're considering changing ALL the points costs to better
account for the mass of the ship, so it won't matter. Even if we don't do
that, though, you're looking at a maximum change of three points per ship,
which is trivial.
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
Well, it occurs to me that if someone didn't like his/her heavys
operating fighters, couldn't the players just come up with a "weapon pack"
(with proper cost adjustment) to replace the fighter groups with?
It sounds like another excellent way to adjust the feel of the "book
ships" to the player's play style/setting.
As St.Jon says: "Do what you want with it!" The construction system is
included...make your own "versions" of the "book ships". If they work out,
tell us about it. I am sure we would like to see them.
Enjoy!
He is using seeker and sensor as different things. A most "un-war game"
thing to do. I never have heard them used that way in any intel briefing.
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:33:18 +0000 agoodall@att.net writes:
You can neither confirm or deny? Good idea...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:59:45 +1100 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@webone.com.au> writes:
> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:
I made the distinction to prevent obfuscation by anyone trying to assert that
using a *passive sensor* rather than an *active sensor* means that the
*seeker* is "not active".
That being said, here are the definitions in more detail than I thought was
needed. Caps are for emphasis only.
1) The SENSOR is a sub-system of the SEEKER.
2) The SENSOR is the system that detects radiated, emitted, or reflected
energy or signals from the target.
2a) A PASSIVE SENSOR only detects energy or signals from the target.
It can detect radiated energy (such as thermal/IR), emitted energy
(such as from the target's own active systems), or energy reflected from an
outside source (such as laser designation or radar from the launch platform).
A passive sensor does not emit any signals and therefor is more difficult for
the target to counter, or even detect it's operation.
2b) An ACTIVE SENSOR emits energy and/or signals, then detects the
reflected energy/signal. The most common example would be a missile
emitting a radar signal and detecting the return or a torpedo emitting sound
pulses ("pings") and detecting the return.
3) A SEEKER takes information from the SENSOR (of whatever type) processes the
data and makes decisions about what is a real target and how to steer the
weapon to that target.
3a) An ACTIVE SEEKER is operating.
3b) An INACTIVE SEEKER is not operating.
Sea Skimming and other OTH missiles have the seeker inactive during their
approach to the target area until a predesignated point to save on battery
life (the "pickle") because the target is not visible even if the seeker was
active. At that predesignated point the seeker is activated and begins
searching for a (or the) target. This is often in
conjunction with a "pop-up" maneuver" where the missile rapidly climbs
to gain a wider field of view and then begins the target acquisition search.
A terrain following missile has one or more sensors and a navigation system
operating during flight to detect terrain features and compare them to stored
data and the intended route. This is separate from the seeker which is
activated at a predesignated point to search for the target.
AAMs and SAMs are pickled on the launcher, and the sensor unmasked (or turned
on). The operator confirms that the senor can "see" the target and that the
seeker has properly identified the target. The missile is then launched with
the seeker active during the entire flight time.
This can use passive sensing, active sensing, or a combination of both. It can
also involve the launch platform or a third party directing energy or a signal
to the target and the missile detecting the reflected signal. In this case,
the target can know that it has been illuminated, but cannot use that signal
to track the missile itself, only the source of the signal. Some missiles use
several types of sensors in combination to reduce the effectiveness of any
countermeasures the target might use.
Some systems uses both passive and active mode sensors either in sequence or
simultaneously. For example, a missile might use both IR (a passive sensor)
and radar (an active sensor) to distinguish the target from decoys like flares
and chaff. Or a torpedo might use hydrophones to passively home on a target's
noise, then switch to an alternating sequence of active and passive sensing
(called
"ping-and-listen"), then in final acquisition mode begin continuous
active sensing ("continuous pinging").
J
Thanks for the definitions from your viewpoint/understanding.
War gamers don't usually use precise language about such details, yet we
differebntiate between Hussars and Chevau Legers.... Especially in a Science
FICTION game about technologies, like FTL, that don't (and in some cases
can't) exist.
Gracias, Glenn
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:22:08 -0800 (PST) Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
writes:
> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:
> Glen Wilson wrote:
> >Jared wrote:
Who "he" - me (which you seem to imply), or Jared (who did it)? AFAIK I
haven't made this distinction; at least not intentionally...
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> I made the distinction to prevent obfuscation by anyone trying to
Since "active" in the context of sensors almost invariably means "emitting",
may I suggest that you use some other word than "active" when what you
actually meant was "switched on" or "operating"?
[snip]
Like Glenn said, thanks for the definitions from your
viewpoint/understanding. It was quite interesting to read.
I note that you contradict your own definition of "sensor" though - in
2)
you state that it is what we at work would call the reciever part of the
system only, yet in 2b) you suddenly talk about "active sensors" which can
emit as well as recieve. FWIW 2b) is the use of this term I'm used to.
Regards,
Jared.
I'm American (Latino, even worse) so English is a second language to
me?????
Well, it was clear to me.... LOL.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:15:39 +0100 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:38:12 +0100 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip>
> Oh, and for the record Sweden is officially *not* a member of NATO <g>
SCANFED?
> Regards,
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> >Oh, and for the record Sweden is officially *not* a member of NATO
I don't think you can really equate ScanFed with NATO. ScanFed seems to be
missing a few relatively important parts of today's NATO, like... <g>