Re: Sensor Range Question

djwj wrote:

> Since I posted the hard science behind this, I should put my own PSB 
> behind it.
> 
> First in deep space: (1) sensor ranges are vastly increased, factors
of
> magnatude greater than in-system. 

Well, um. I suspect I have different definitions of "in-system" and
"deep space", than you.

> (2) Jump Signatures are huge, simply the gravitic energies needed to
> fold space are immense, much less the magnetic
> and radio emissions from the powerplant that just accomplished it. 

OK.

> (3) In all the sci-fi that I have been exposed to Jump engines need
to use > certain jump points, and can only fold so much space at a
time.

Examples of sci-fi backgrounds that do not require specific
backgrounds: Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Honor Harrington... the
list goes ever on and on. B5 and HH have specific points where
hyperjumps are easier than elsewhere, but (most) ships aren't
*required* to use them.

> Second In-System: (1) in system if there is a system wide presence 
> there will be sensor bouys in the oort cloud, in extreme orbits from
the 
> sun, 

Let's hope your buoys are extremely cheap, extremely long-ranged and
extremely durable :-/ You'll need huge amounts of them otherwise.

> (2) If a planet is worth
> protecting, it's worth it's own dedicated space forces. 

Certainly. But is it able to support them? Value can be other than
economic...

> (3) some systems
> will have "roaming" fleets that stay out of the way, possibly hiding
on the
> fringe of an asteroid belt until they get a distress call, and move
at
> maximum burn to the engagement.

The odds for such a "roaming" fleet to be unable to intervene in time
are rather staggering, unless you use warp points or a similar concept
- or the defenders are able to make micro-jumps within the system. 

> Finally in general: 60" table range is the maximum range for a firing
> solution, after all at that range you could have a weapon that could
shot
> someone. Detection at "Something is out there, sir, Scanners cannot 
> identify it yet." is much longer but largely irrelevant for game
purpouses 
> (At least I don't have a table that big...)

Yep. 

> As to my use of 1" = 1 km , 1 turn = 5-15 (averaging around 10) 
> seconds: (1) Ground support! Dirstide II certanly dosen't have time 
> intervals in the 15min range

Yes it has. Page 4: "...if it is necessary to determine how long a
battle has lasted in game terms (...) then treat each full turn as
being equivalent to 15 minutes..."

> (2) It's still more range than any sci-fi movie I have ever seen, or
book I > have ever read. 

Read the Honor Harrington books. Beam ranges (against sidewalls) are
~500000 km, maximum missile ranges in excess of 6 million km (in
addition to the initial vector provided by the firing ship)...

> (3) I can't believe that space missiles are so unagile that in 15
minutes 
> they cannot turn more than 60 degrees.

Fuel limitations rather than limited agility, I suspect... no matter
how short you make the turns, Cinematic-moving thrust-4+ ships are
always easier to maneuver than missiles in the MT rules. This relative
unmaneuverability gets me far worse than the absolute one.

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry