Re: NI/NAC AAR & Stealth

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, John Leary wrote:
[snip]
> ...
> better phrased than most of mine.   As a third party I feel your 
> comments are of great value.

Well - naturally, since I'm agreeing with you . . .
[grinning and running *very fast* from thrown bricks]

Seriously, though, if all you do is use Noam's "stealthtech" as a pure
game
mechanic, it works.  After all, any rule can be introduced without
justification if it creates a mechanism that you can enjoy using in a
game.  
The problem comes when you try and logically justify the steathtech with
any
sort of PSB, given the Tufflyverse mechanisms.	Noam's stealthtech fails
the
logic test in the following manner - and I really should have used this
example in my previous post.

A single FCS can be used to direct any number of weapons against a
single
target - subject to individual weapons restrictions, of course (Pulse
Topr,
Needle Beam, etc.).  If so, how can a single FCS lock on to a stealthed
ship
at 20 MU well enough to fire several Class 3 beams at the target, and
yet
still be confused enough to not be able to fire its battery of Class 2
beams
at the same target?  It *has* target lock, otherwise the Class 3's
couldn't
fire - so why can't the Class 2's smite the stealthed ship as well?

The game mechanic says "reduce the weapons range by 1/4, 1/3, ...", yet
the
PSB behind it counts on confusing the FCS of the opposing ship.  Sorry,
but
the logic subprocessor of my internal wetware bounces the stealthtech
PSB out
as invalid. :)

===================================================================
Mark "Hauptmann" Shurtleff
  email: hauptman@sfcmd.com -or- hauptman@concentric.net
  visit the Gear Locker at http://www.sfcmd.com/HeavyGear/

 Finagle's Law:
   The perversity of the Universe tends towards the maximum.
===================================================================