Re: Game 796

[Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>>>> A stealth-2 ship at 16 MU should _not_ show up in targeting as  
>>>> being
>>>> at 24 MU.
>>>
>>> WHY shouldn't it show up in targetting as being at 24mu?
>>
>> For a purely semantic difference on how stealth "feels". If the
>> actual range is 17, the effective range is still 17.
>
> The hell it is. If the actual range is 17, the appearent range (or
> "effective range" if you like) against Stealth-1 is 20.4 ... and the
> effective range against Stealth-2 is 25.5 ...

>> If the ship is stealth-2 and you're firing a b2 at it, the  
>> effective range
>> is _still_ 17, but _your_ effective range _band_ is 8.
>
> Which is mathematically identical to saying that your *range bands*  
> are
> unaffected, but the *appearent range* has increased:

Exactly. The two are mathematically identical. But they _feel_  
different. To me at least. There is a big difference in feel between  
this:
Weapons Officer: "I _know_ they're in nominal range, but we just  
can't lock and hit them because of that crap on their hulls! We need  
to get closer."
and this:
Tac Officer: "Their signatures are confusing our sensors, targeting  
thinks they're farther away than they are, Sir. We need to close the  
range to be effective."

They are exactly the same _effects_. We agree on that. We don't agree  
as to how those effects should be represented in FTJ.

> against Stealth-1
> targets your weapons fire as if the range is 20% greater than it  
> actually
> is (ie., the *appearent range* is 20% greater than the actual  
> range), and
> against Stealth-2 targets your weapons fire as if the range is 50%  
> greater
> than it actually is.

Yes. This mathematically identical to saying that Beam range bands go  
from 12 MU to 10 vs. stealth 1, and to 8 vs. stealth 2. (And torps  
for 6 to 5 and 4, respectively). I also argue that thinking in terms  
of range bands is _easier_ than thinking in terms of modifying  
"effective range" It is easier at the game table to divide _measured_  
range to target by 8 than it is to multiply it by 1.5 and then divide  
by 12.

>>> The only reason the targetting window shows the range AT ALL is  
>>> so the
>>> player can determine which ships are in range of his weapons (and
>>> in what range band).
>>
>> Ah - but that parenthetical is not directly indicated by the range
>> number value.
>
> It most definitly *is* directly indicated both by the range number  
> value
> and by the warning flag "Out of range" which ought to pop up whenever
> you're attempting to target a ship which is out of range.

I disagree. At range 11 you're in B2 range against both a standard  
hull and stealth 2. But you're in RB1 vs. standard, and RB2 vs  
stealth. You still have to know your range bands. If you insist on  
making the effective range by multiplying the stealth factor, first  
you end up with a decimal range (16.5) and you _still_ have to know  
your range bands.

>> It is determined by the player because the he knows the
>> range band of his weapons. If he knows what they are vs. stealth
>> ships, the number is exactly as informative as it should be.
>
> No, it isn't as informative as it should be - because in the "real  
> world"
> even if the captain/admiral at the start of the battle doesn't know  
> what
> effect the enemy's Stealth has on his weapon systems, his  
> subordinates (the
> sensor and weapons crews) will tell him within approximately ten  
> seconds of
> noticing that they can't get as secure target locks as they should  
> at that
> actual range. If they *don't* tell him about it, they're up for
> court-martials for gross negligence of their duty... assuming that  
> they
> survive, of course.

Here's what that sounds like to me. Forgive me if I'm in error.
I take it you are assuming here that FOW is being used, and you don't  
_know_ for 100% certain that you're trying to hit a stealth ship.  
You're saying that there should be some immediate feedback from the  
weapons fire dialog/drop down that firing at that ship at that range  
will be affected. This can indeed be solved by either modifying the  
range to be a longer "effective range", or by using an "effective  
range band" display like I outlined. I admit that a single number for  
"effective range" is more economical graphically. However, 1) adding  
the "out of range" flag for stealth affected systems is probably more  
important, 2) the "effective range band display" is more informative,  
and 3) modifying the range number is potentially additionally  
misleading; For example, I sometimes use these range numbers to help  
me plot my next movement phase. If they get modified, that utility  
goes away.



Bring One Maze    (to Noam Izenberg's Maze potluck)