Re: [FT] Sensors (Option 2)

At 10:38 PM 1/12/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Denny Graver wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> Revised thought:
>>> 
>>> Basic	 36"	  1d6
>>> Enhanced	 54"	  2d6
>>> Superior	 72"	  3d6
>>> 
>>> would work better on reflection .
>>
>>One way of merging this proposal with the old ranges is to make the
sensor
>>rolls act even more like beam fire, by allowing them extended range at
the
>>expense of detection:
>>
>>Passive:    range 36"
>>Basic:      range 54" [1d6]
>>Enhanced:   range 54" [2d6], range 72" [1d6]
>>Superior:   range 54" [3d6], range 72" [2d6], range 90" [1d6]
> 
>(Without looking up existing sensor ranges...)
>It'd be easier to remember if you used Nx24 inches, and it
>would have only a minor effect on active sensor ranges:
>Passive:     range 24" (1x)
>Basic:       range 48" (2x) [1d6]
>Enhanced:    range 48" (2x) [2d6], range 72" (3x) [1d6]
>Superior:    range 48" (2x) [3d6], range 72" (3x) [2d6], range 96" (4x)
[1d6]
>Or Passive could remain at 36" (1.5x), while the others became Nx24.

	The competition should also be different.  Stealth systems take
up 5% of
mass per level (die) and cost 4*mass.  ECM systems take up 1 Mass per
unit
of self protection while area ECM systems take up 2 Mass per unit.
	Roll off of sensor versus stealth/ECM.	Roll dice for sensor as
beams.
Beat the level of stealth/ECM active on the target ship to gain a lock.
	Threashold starts at 0.
	+1 per level of stealth
	+1 per unit of ECM in area
	-1 per 50 Mass of target.

	Beat by:
	1 targeting and speed data
	2 mass and acceleration
	3 original class configuration data (if seen before)
	4 current configuration data

Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!