A Stealth Primer (and [FT-AAR] a NAC/NI AAR - "Wargames")

Sorry I wasn't able to join the discourse this weekend. I'll also be
mostly absent the rest of this week, but I'll calrify what I can for now
about Stealth.

Stealth Tech

1)	Stealth Hull - comes in 2 levels and makes a ship harder to hit.
Mass is same as partial and full streamlining., cost 50% more (3/mass).
Stealth level 1 reduces enemy  range bands by 1/4.  Stealth level 2
(Super Stealth) reduces range bands by 1/3. Includes vs. Fighter , SML,
and PDS (i.e. fighters bust be within 5" or 4" to attack, SMLs must be
within 5 "or  4" to acquire target,  PDS anti-ship at 5" or 4").
Enhanced sensors tied with Firecon reduce stealth level by 1, Special
sensors by 2. Stealth also effects detection (but rules unworked) SSD
symbol: Black Hexagon next to damage track for each level. Stealth 1
ships cannot have Super strength hulls, Steath 2 ships cannot have
Strong or Super hulls.
	PSB: Special hull construction and materials, sacrificing hull
integrity for reduced sensor profile. 

2)	Stealth Fighter - Stealth fighters are +12pts/group and are the
same as Heavy fighters except for PSB (stealthy hull
design/shape/materials rather than an active jamming or screening
system). Super-Stealth (Stealth level 2) fighters cost +24pts/group and
act as having Screen 2 vs. PDS/ADFC/other fighters. This is more
balanced than forcing PDS/ADFC to have reduced range, IMHO, as the
latter way would give a range for fighters to be immune to ship-based
defenses.

3)	Stealth System (not tested). ECM version of stealth with same
levels and effects, but damageable via needle attack or threshold. Mass
similar to screen, cost ~ 2x screen or more. Ships with stealth system
can't use screens or enhanced sensors. PSB - more like the Minbari
stealth system in the B5 universe.

Oprationally, stealth 1 is harder to use, as the range reduction is
smaller (This assessment from the first ime I took Stealth ships against
Indy over a month ago. Several additional strategic problems resulted in
my being mauled, but keeping the range to where I needed it was a bear.

NI AAR analysis:
	I can concur with Indy on most everything in his report. NI
ships have fewer systems than average ships of the same mass, due tot
hte stricutres of stealth, and the desire for long range weapons. The
CA's (CH's actually) had 2 class 3's each and 4 PDS. Once CE had 2 class
3's and 1 PDS, the other had 2 Class 2's 4 PDS, and an ADFC. 
The NI was fortunate with rerolls early in the game, and did well with
thresholds and damage control in later turns (After the first CH was
destroyed).
	Poor indy rolled Crappily much of the game. I think I rolled
about average overall, and with better timing than Indy.Givent eh length
of the combat, If we had kept on, my ships would probably have done as
Indy opined, but if the law of averages were not Indy's enemy, chances
are he would slowly be getting systems up while I hunted him down and
make things more expensive during the 'mopping up'.
	I wouldn't consider the fight a rout for NI by any means, as a
few more 4's instead of 3's on indy's part would have left me with at 2
fewer ships by late-mid game. (or 3's instead of 4's on mine). 
	I do believe the scenario should probably be re-played as-is,
though, to check balance. I would like for stealth to be a viable,
balanced system.

As for fighter-rerolls, I always thought of PDS fire as abstracting a
close firefight where a bunch of small guns were blasting at a bunch of
small ships. If all the fighters are 'heavy' than each is protected by
their own armor, and one being destryed makes it no easier to destroy
another, so rerolls should be the same as initial rolls. Stealth would
use the same justification. Ican also see it the other way around, but
that much weaker protection would make it harder, IMHO to justify the
additional 12 points per fighter group for heavy fighters.

'zall for now.

Noam

Noam R. Izenberg		noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu