Re: Game 796

[Mike Riddle <mriddle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Is it a possible PSD that the Sleath implemention are decoys etc such 
that the firing ship personnel think they have lock-on ie they are 
getting targeting solutions  they are just wrong ones?

Noam Izenberg wrote:

>>>>>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)
>
>
>
>
>  
>