[FT] WotW #11 Stealth Systems

Well, as WotW has attracted no further comment, I'm following Noam's
suggestion:

WotW #11 is Stealth Systems - this _could_ include the old cloaking
device :-)

So here are the candidates:

###################
1) Blind Field [Aaron Teske] (Spacefleet conversion page)
			    
The blind field is a suite of powerful ECM equipment coupled with chaff,
flares	and a few PSB items that is designed to protect a volume of
space. Unfortunately there were several drawbacks that prevented its use
on capital ships, but for smaller escorts it is a viable system.

The blind field effectively doubles the distance between any two ships
(or the ship and a missile) as far as targeting and firing is concerned.

i.e., Ship A (with Blind Field) is 8mu away from Ship B, but if B fires
on A it would be as though the ships were 16mu away. the field works
both ways: B is also considered to be 16mu away should A wish to fire
upon it.

A blind field takes up 3 MASS or 30% of the MASS of the ship, whichever
is greater, and costs 4 points per MASS of the field. The radius of the
blind field on the board is the ninth root of the MASS of the system:
note you need to escort a vessel (per fighter rules) to grant this
protection to another ship. Blind fields cannot be combined with other
types of shields or screens.

2) Cloaking Shroud Gland [Charles Stanley Taylor] (via e-mail)

For simplicity, this is identical to the More Thrust cloaking device,
but using a PSB suitable for Phalons (based on the Vapour Shroud Gland).

3) Jammer (Minbari) [Sean Penn's B5 Conversion] (Sam's website)

Minbari jamming systems prevent lock on by enemy ships. Ships can use
multiple fire control systems to give themselves an increased chance of
locking on however.

A jamming system has a mass equal to 5% of hull mass, and a cost equal
to the mass of the ship.

Any ship that tries to fire on a jamming vessel has to roll a d6 to lock
on if they are beyond 6mu range. Up to 12mu, they need 3+. Up to 24mu,
they need 4+. Out to 36mu they need 5+. Any range beyond 36mu needs a
roll of 6 to lock on.

Multiple fire controls targeting Jamming ship give multiple rolls.

Comments:
(Oerjan) Probability to get a shot off for varying numbers of FCSs:
Range (mu)	1	2	3	4	5	Avg.	Surv.  
Value
0-6		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	0      
0
6-12		67%	89%	96%	99%	100%	84%	19%    
2xMass
12-24		50%	75%	88%	94%	97%	71%	41%    
6xMass
24-36		33%	56%	70%	80%	87%	54%	86%    
15xMass
 >36		17%	31%	42%	52%	60%	31%	226%   
38xMass

Note: The "average". is weighted by the percentage of the ships in my
design archive which have that number of FCSs (on the 9th of February,
2001). The "Survivability boost" is roughly "how much more firepower
does the enemy need to throw at the ship to kill it", though in this
case it only applies fully if the enemy has no non-jamming targets to
shoot at - otherwise he can shoot at some other target instead. The
"Value" is a rough calculation of how good the system is at that range
(screens = 3xMass).

Therefore, 20xMass could work, or could be a bit high (as usual it's
better if the cost is too high than if it is too low!). A ship with
jammers and extreme-range weapons is dangerous if it has enough engines
to keep the range open, but so is *any* fast ship with extreme-range
weapons simply because they're so difficult to catch. Inside range 36
(where considerably more weapons are able to shoot at it) 20xMass would
seem to make it somewhat overpriced, except that I assume that you need
to *dedicate* FCSs to the intended target (ie., if you fail the lock-on
roll you don't get to use that FCS to engage another target). The
jammer-equipped fleet needs to keep the range open at all costs though!
And, of course, this is another system which favours large ships (which
can carry multiple FCSs)...

What does it do to missiles etc.? (I assume that missiles can't be
jammed since they only aquire targets within 6mu anyway.) How does it
interact with enhanced/superior sensors?]

Note: Compare with the Mimbari Jammer in the EFSB: A single roll per FC
by the Mimbari player, on a 4+, the FC is jammed, and cannot fire.
Also works vs. fighters (and presumably missiles), each fighter group
(or missile salvo) is treated as a single attack.

4) Stealth System [Noam Izenberg] (NIFT-Midbar Skunkworks)
								       
Mass as screen, Cost 3x screen (9 pts/mass)
Stealth Level 1 is 1/4 reduction in opposing range bands.Level 2 is 1/3
reduction. Stealth systems follow threshold checks as any other system.

PSB – active ECM system like the Minbari stealth system in the B5
universe.

5) Stealth Hull

Has same effect per level as Stealth System, but different PSB.

Stealth hull loses 1 level at Threshold 2, second level (if any) at
Thresh 3.

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?

Is 7% mass/level and cost 5/mass too much/little? I think it worked OK
for a
thresholdable system.
If we want to tie it into streamlining, we could Mass it like
streamlining
(10%/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/mass/level.

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 toward 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 aerodynamic "shell"
around a ship screaming through an atmosphere.

Ok, IIRC Jon Crimmins once posted a system called the i-Cloak for his
space Illuminati - which somehow never made it into the WDA, and I can't
find it in the archive - if anyone has the details, could they please
add it as number 6).

Ok, lets see what everybody thinks.

Charles