Re: FT III: ECM. from originator

	I haven't been on this long myself and I'm not really familiar
with
what happens elsewhere on the net but it has been interesting and given
me a
few ideas which I might just shamelessly steal. Anyway to your
questions....
     
	1. Yes, definately. By firing a ship is announcing that it is
there.
Missle and torpedo fire should be fairly straight forward to back track
(this might vary with ECM and Senors) to point of origin. Beams should
be
harder useless you believe that the beam would be visible along it's
entire
length (ala Star Trek phasors) it which case firing one will be a dead
give
away. For more ideas you might watch the battle sequence at the end of
"Star
Trek ?, The Undiscovered Country", (look for the torpedo launches by the
Klingons).

	2. Interesting idea. Problem is how do you get this to work on
the
table? To my way of thinking recon operations are more siuted to
campaign
games at the "Operational level" which is between the Strategic and
Tactical
levels. "Starfire" rules have two levels for this which they call the
System
and Interception levels, this (if you can get the rules) might give you
some
ideas for this "Operational" level.

	3. Another interesting idea. Battletech had something similar
(NARC
I think it was called?) which was a missle that did no damage but once
attached increased the chances of another missile hit. I believe that
the
further missiles had to come from the original firer or one that was
fitted
with the same system. You might then come up with two new missle types,
a
"leech" which attaches and transmits a homing becon and the "bloodhound"
type which would attack only targets with leeches attached but with
increased chances of a hit.

	4. Your daughter watches too much "Sea Quest: DSV". This would
really fit into recon area to which see above. On the actual table it
might
be useful as a limited scarifical mine clearing system. On second
thoughts
it might be useful in asteroids allowing you to target ship that you
otherwise can't. The only time that you can't draw line of sight is in
an
asteroid field. Firing beams and torpedos would be dodgy (as they need
direct line of sight) but it should allow you to fire missiles. Give the
system say the same mass and cost as a screen and allow a number of
drones
depending on class ie Capitals - 3. Perhaps 1 mass for every 3 drones.
Hmmmm..........

	Don't worry about making the system too complicated. It's clear
from
the mail here that people make the game simpler or more complex
according to
their own tastes. If you and the people you play with (a VERY important
consideration) are happy it doesn't matter.
	As you seem to be into submarines can I suggest "War beneath the
sea: submarine conflict 1939-1945" by Peter Padfield. My copy is by
Pimlico
press.
	Cheers.

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au
"Everything has been thought of before,
the problem is to think of it again."
				Johann W. von Goethe.

At 12:01 PM 02-06-97 -0500, you wrote:
>First, let me tell you all what a pleasure it is to be part of this
list!!
>
>I have seen too many situations where people jump down each others
throats
>right away or respond with such carelessness that actual discussion and
>creative thought is non-existant.
>
>Looking back at my original ECM comments, these were my thoughts while
looking
>at FT with a certain frame of mind.  No one blasted me, told me how
stoooopid,
>etc. I was being ...  Thank you one and all!!
>
>Okay, at the time I was seeing FT through the eyes of a level of
technology
>akin to something in Star Trek: Next Generation.  You know, where one
quick
>swipe of a medical tricorder and they can figure-out what your
>great-great-great cousin ate for breakfast on her 3497th day of life.
>
>However, it was in the responses to my post that I was brought "back to
>earth".  Three of my favorite videos are Predator, Classic Star Trek
episode
>with the Romulans, and Hunt For Red October.  [do you see a pattern
here?]
>
>So, in regards to ECM in Full Thrust,	would it be safe to say that we
are
>talking about the ability to detect the presence of another ship, ID
that ship
>as an enemy and to be able to fire weapons that will hit it ...
>
>versus the ability to prevent detection, identification and/or weapons'
lock?
>
>Questions:
>
>1]	 Will activity [like combat] on the part of a ship increase its 
>vulnerability to being targeted?
>
>2]	 Can fighters act as "forward observers" and "paint" targets or
at
>least perform recon that will aid the fleet?
>
>3]	 How about weapons packages that contain transponders,
scramblers, and
>other thingies that will act a "bell around the cat's neck"?
>
>4]	 [My 11 year old daughter came up with this] How about
"whiskers"?
>	 Unmanned probes that are released once a ship enters normal
>space.  They would range far and wide gathering and transmitting data
that
>warns ships of dangers, hazards, etc.	These could also be used in
military
>roles ranging from recon to decoys.
>
>Thanks for the space.
>
>John M. Huber
>
>