Prev: [FT] Honor Harrington update Next: [FT] A few more fleets

Re: NIFT Stealth II Trial AAR

From: "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:55:19 -0400
Subject: Re: NIFT Stealth II Trial AAR

Several responses here (Love that Digest)

From: John Leary <>

>> 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.

How would you make Electronic stealth? Something that gets degraded if
steath ship fires/uses 'active sensors'?
I prefer a single system with a couple ways of using it - just for
simplicity's sake. The "fixed loss" vs. "Thresholdable system" are easy,
small/subtle ways of differentiating a hull-based and electronics-based

>   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.

Intersting. Only the stealth designs are lopsided like that. I though of
making all of my NI fleet like that, but decided to go more FB
Jon's cannonizing of NI will change things yet again.

 >     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.

Yes and no. Campaign-wise, NI is a smaller power with a bigger, lower
enemy (IF). Most of NI's battles are deep-space (resource fights,
operations, raids), and home defense (planetary/base). Stealth is suited
only a few of those missions. So, Stealth (in campaign terms) would be
expensive offensive mission option and would take up a fraction of the

> Any convoy escort, assault on planet/station,
> or defence of same would be a disaster for the
> N.I.

Depends on the situation. Stealth would certainly not be best for

>     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.

Time for another playtest round. If PBeM, probably in the fall.

From: Charles Taylor <>

> I do have one slight 'issue' with the whole stealth concept - a
> stealthed ship, even a 200+ Mass SDN is treated as if it were further
> away by any attacking ship, while a MASS 6 non-stealthed scout is
> attacked normally.

It's PSB. One way to think of it: Stelath diffuses the signal of a ship
a much wider area of probability. Maybe you can hit the DN more easily
the SC all things being equal, but the DN has a few shadow DNs in its
vicinity, and you have to pick one or strafe all of them to try to hit.
of different PSB ways to do it, though.

> The implication is that the stealth system reduces the signature of
> _any_ ship to a value greater than that of a fighter (which cannot be
> targeted at all by non PDS weapons), but less than that of the
> scout/strikeboat (which could be as small as MASS 3).

FT doesn't have size bonuses/penalties. Simple PSB is that 23rd century
sensing and targeting _is_ that good unless specifically countered by
like stealth.

> Anyway, why don't we make Stealth Systems WotW #11?

OK by me. Should include Minbari Jammers, etc..


Prev: [FT] Honor Harrington update Next: [FT] A few more fleets