Re: NI/NAC AAR & Stealth

Noam R. Izenberg SRP wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, John Leary wrote:
> 
> >	 Here is the problem:	Ship sensors suffer the reduction, not
the
> > weapons.   A weapons range could be reduced if its range was greater
> > than the
> > modified sensor range.   Once a ship crosses the modified line of
> > detection,
> > it has been detected, and is a viable target at that range.   JTL
> 
> This assumes that sensor detection and targeting are identical. I'm
> assuming that individual weapons require target lock to fire and hit.
> Stealth frustrates the target lock.
> 
XXX
     In the FT/MT/FB detection and targeting ARE identical.   All
fuctions 
that function to control, detect, and direct weapons function THRU the
FCS.
One of the problems I have stated with the VERY generized 'stealth'
concept
that has been developed here is that it revises the building of ships.	

The concept even in the infant stages of development changes the
shipbuilding
rules and GIVES a LOCAL FCS to each and every weapon mount on the ship.
A central FCS is no longer necessary to control, detect or direct the
ships
weapons.   Just throw the FCS away an mount more weapons.  
     Also note that if the target lock is an individual thing, then one
should
check for each mount individually.   
     Also note that a ship while in 'stealth' mode would not be using
search 
or target sensors, and therefore the 'stealth' ship cannot fire its
weapons
while in 'stealth' mode.  JTL
XXX 
XXX
> Re: fighters
> >	 This again infers that the ships sensors are no longer
functioning
> > and
> > the PDS is operating under a 'local/visual' fire control system.
> >	 While I can agree with the 'smaller sensor signature' portion
of
> > the
> > statement the 'harder to hit' is only wishful thinking.   Once the
> > fighter
> > is on the sensor screen it is no different than any other fighter.	
JTL
> 
> Same as for ships. It's not the sensors. It's the target lock. It's
realy
> just PSB for the game effect, but it is consistent.
> 
XXX
     The 'all things to all people' mode is back on!   The individual
weapons 
mounts have a local fire control and ...non-sensor...target lock
devices.
If the PSB is an anti-lock device then the weapons should not have a
hard
breakthru point.  Individual rolls per weapon should be made to
determine
lockon.   JTL
XXX
> Re: Broadside arcs
> >	 And exactly how would you use this concept to defend a planet
or
> > space
> > station?   The ships are designed to fight while withdrawing from
the
> > combat.
> Different ships for different roles. Some system defense ships are not
> designed this way. However, if an anemy decides not to give chase to a
> defending stealth ship and intstead attack the desired target
base/planet,
> they will present a flank/rear to the long range weapons of the
stealth
> defenders and be picked off with the death of a  athousand cuts.
> 
> Offest arcs are primarily offensive in nature, to my analysis, but
they
> vertainly have use on the defense.
> 
> Noam
XXX
     Your opinion is a good as mine.  We will have to agree to disagree
here.

Bye for now,
John L.