Prev: RE: David's vehicle design Next: (SG2) check those numbers

Re: NIFT Stealth II Trial AAR

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: NIFT Stealth II Trial AAR

--- "Izenberg, Noam" <> wrote:
> Re: Revised stealth.
> So, JTL, Laserlight, Charles, etc..
> Something like this seems to be favored:
> Stealth hull loses 1 level at Threshold 2, second
> level (if any) at Thresh 3.
     This form of stealth is suggested for use
with a 'materials/shape' stealth system.
I do not preclude the use of an 'electronic/ECM/
ECCM' type system that would have a threshold
check at normal times, one or two levels of 
electronic stealth can be used if treated in the
same manner as thrust for damage.   Please note
that the effect of a system based stealth would 
not be the same as your stealth.

> This better than a thresholdable system at first,
> then worse as the ship
> gets more damaged, so on the whole, would it be a
> wash, costwise?
     That is certainly a good starting point.
Playtest might suggest some changes.

> Is 7% mass/level and cost 5/mass too much/little? I
> think it workd OK for a thresholdable system.
> If we want to tie it into streamlining, we could
> Mass it like streamlining
> (5%/level) and cost it 3 pts/Mass.
> Or keep it at 7% and say that Stealth 2 ships are
> automatically partially
> streamlined. Or add on to stealth at 3%Mass and
> 2pts/masslevel.
     You should also consider the effect of not
stealthing all arcs on the ship, I.E. N.I. ships
have offset fire arcs and therefor could stealth
only the nose, tail, and weapons arcs on one side
at 66 percent of the mass/cost.
     But back to the original point, I do not 
think that the concept is viable except for a 
'one of' game.	 (Noam, I will pick on your N.I.
to illustrate.)  The N.I. are not really suited 
a campaign game as the N.I. can only fight 
effectively in a withdrawl type situation.
Any convoy escort, assault on planet/station,
or defence of same would be a disaster for the
     But back to the original point(again),
I would favor a lower mass cost and a higher 
point cost like; 5 % mass and 5 points.
Again, playtest might cause some changes.

> Mass		Stealth 1 Mass		Cost
> 150		11 or 15			55 or 45
> 100		7 or 10 		35 or 30
> 50		4 or 5			20 or 15
> 25		2 or 3			10 or 9
> I could go either way, perhaps leaning twoard the
> lighter, more expensive
> stealth. 
> The PSB of stealthing and streamlining doesn't
> bother me one bit. I could
> see it work a bunch of ways. Don't forget
> Streamlining in FT could also
> simply be a modified screen system that creates an
> earodynamic "shell"
> around a ship screaming through an atmosphere.

> It would help to ballance if there were any real
> [FT] game utility to
> streamlining
    I completely agree that streamlining has no
value in the game.

Bye for now,
John L.

Prev: RE: David's vehicle design Next: (SG2) check those numbers