Re: [FT] Sensor Range Question

On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Jerry Han wrote:

> Beth Fulton wrote:
>
> > In answer to the question its in system. Derek had done up some
sensor
> > rules for the a campaign we're heading into and then someone said
you'd be
> > able to see ships coming for ages and that stumped him as all the
material
> > he was working off kept giving him fairly minute ranges in
comparison to
> > system size (e.g Basic sensor's extreme range is 150" passive, 600"
active
> > and.ESM 720" - double that for enhanced and double the enhanced
ranges for
> > superior).
> 
> Actually, MT is kind of weird in which it postulates a larger active
> range than passive range.

FT/MT really has two layers of sensors; it has long-range and
short-range.

short range sensors are our friends the active and passive scanners,
which
can be used on ships on the table to identify them, etc.

long range sensors are the things which tell you there is even something
there to scan.

thus, when you start out and there are only bogey markters on the table,
your long-range sensors have done their job and figured out that there
are
enemy ships out there, and got their position and velocity. they have
also
probably got some ghosts, drones, etc.

when you get a bit closer and start pinging away with active scanners,
and
looking out with passives, then those are your short-range
high-resolution
instruments: their job is to gather detailed information on the target.

> > I know that was a fat lot of good with regard to advancing the
actual
> > debate, but I thought it might help to put the original question in
> > perspective.
> > 
> > Just one more thing (which is purely out of my own curiosity) if
sensor
> > ranges are so small that you'd only see a fleet coming if it was as
close
> > as the moon etc, how do the fleet find each other to fight? Just
wander
> > around until they fall over something? And I'm not trying to take
the mick
> > here (well not completely), I am seriously curious.
> 
> I think Laser had a point that, in these circumstances, defending
fleets
> will tend to stay close to the object they're protecting.

except that then you open yourself up to the boom'n'zoom attack ... i
think interception is the way to go (defender boosts out, then turns
round
and matches velocity with the attacker so that the relative closing
speed
is fairly small).

> And also the 
> point about the difference between 'firing solution' and 'contact
> detected but not localized.'

that's basically what i am saying too.

Tom