Re: FT III: ECM

> One thing bothers me about ECM, ECCM, Stealth, Sensors, and the like
is the
> great variety of matter and energy in space.	I believe some of the
earlier
> concepts involving cloaking technology involved "bending light" around
an
> object so you can "see" it.  So you wait for the ship to move through
a
> comet's tail and look for the wake the cloaked ship makes.
>
Personally, I have always liked "cloaked" ships as I feel they add a
whole
new element to the game.  We tend to limit cloaking vessels to escort
sizes only, and these become the subs of space.  For this reason alone I
feel it is worth having something close (though not nesecerily complete)
to a complete cloak.

 
> Now we know about solar winds, radio pulses, radiation,
micro-meteorites,
> "dark matter", etc. etc.  A physical object moving through the aether
[not
> sure of the exact spelling at this moment but I'm refering to the fact
that
> "space" is not a "vacuum"] is going to bounce, absorb, reflect, leave
a trail,
> as it moves OR as the aether moves around it.
> 
I think that engine emmisions are far more likely to get you detected. 
No
space is not a vacuum, but it is VERY diffuse.	Once you are talking
about
a couple of particles per cubic meter, well yes you may scatter them,
but
will you scatter them towards the detector ? Can your detector
distinguish
that few particles in the background mess of radiation etc.  I agree a
ship will not be completely undetectable, but it may be that it's
signal/background noise ratio is small enough that what emmisions it
does
throw out of of no consequence.  We allow ships who are not actively
thrusting (to reduce thier own noise) to attempt to locate cloaked
ships.
Again think back to the sub analogy.  A sub moving fast and shallow is
easy to detect, but if it's running silent and deep, you have a real
problem.  Now you may find it if you yourself stop engines, active ping
etc.  all this leads to a fun game, but is more complecated that some
people want to go.

To go back to your examples above.  Solar wind only becomes an issue
when
I am near a sun, or not moving with the wind (ie at the same speed and
direction). radio pulses etc, may work, but I'm sure there are people
out
there who could think of effective counter measures. Can they be bent ?
Are they directional (meaning you would have to point them straight at
my
ship). I am assuming the cloaked vessel is attempting to minimise it's
radiation emmisions, but if it thrusts etc. then there is more chance of
it being detected.  Can your detectors track all these micro-meteorites
etc. ?	Can my cloaked ship emmit a false signal of "space" ?  I have to
say that I think there is nothing wrong with cloaks and ECM.  It depends
on what flavour of game you are looking for.

> I feel that, at best, systems that jam the guidance systems of
torpedoes,
> fly-by fighters and the like might be closest we could ever really
come to any
> sort of ECM system. 
>
Certainly these will always be essential methods, but it wouldn't be
science fiction if we didn't use a bit of imagination.
 
> Even making a ship "invisible" to a torpedo will still leave some kind
of
> wake.  All the targeting system has to do is determine the edges of
the wake
> and target one of the edges/sides of the wake.
>
Yes it will leave a wake, but that wake may be to weak to detect.  I'm
sure there are people who design tracking systems world wide who would
break down and cry at a phrase like "All the targeting system has to do
is
determine the edges of the wake..."

 
> Granted, this is Science Fiction and we can do just about anything. 
But, will
> adding this level of complexity actually add to the game flow and
enjoyment? 
> 
Depends on the game you want.  For my games then yes they do, but if you
are after a quick afternoon game for a group of beginners then probably
not.  One of the strenghts of FT is the ability to expand and
experiment.
Completely different games are made possible by the smallest changes.

I have nothing against cloak/ECM free systems/backgrounds and also use
them reguarly, but I feel that they are an essential part of OPTIONAL
rules.

-Entropy