Re: [FT] WotW #11 Stealth Systems - review

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>

> Well, with the current range multipliers; the steps are as follows:

> Stealth Level Range Multiplier	Difference
> None		x1
> 1		x1.33			x1.33
> 2		x1.5			x1.125
> 3		x2			x1.33

> So the step between 2 and 3 is the same as the step between none and
1.

My point is that each step should be a smaller increment. - diminishing
returns.

>Changing the range multipliers thus:

>Stealth Level	Range Multiplier	Difference
> 1		x1.25			x1.25
> 2		x1.5			x1.2
> 3		x2			x1.33

I suppose this is do-able. My appraoch for stealth was the opposite of
the
way you're looking at:
I went for "effective weapon range" versus your "effective target
distance"
The way I did it, 9" beam bands and 5" Torp bands) (stealth 1) is the
equivalent of your range muliplier 1.33. I found 9" bands was more
tractable
(rather faster)  than the, however simple, range multiplication math.
For stealth 2, you get 8" inch beam bands, and 4" torp bands, or 1.5 x
effective range. By that logic, stealth 3 would go 7" beam, stay 4" for
torp.

A 1.25x range increase does not map well into my "effective weapon
range" -
something like 10" beam bands, 5" torp bands. Also at 1.25, stealth 1 is
very hard to use effectively. 1.33 is no picnic either, which is why
when I
use stealth, I always go for stealth 2. 

I still favor the"effective weapon range" because its faster to figure,
therefore don't like "stealth 3" as 6"/3" unless the cost goes up
exponentially.

> With a MASS of 5% of hull mass per level gives a cost of 10 times the
> MASS of the stealth system.

This I can agree on.

> Missile/Fighter 'Lock-On' ranges are as follows:

>Stealth Level	Cinematic	Vector
> none		6		3
>  1		5		2.5
> 2		4		2
> 3		3		1.5

These look good to me (except stealth 3).

> OTOH, I'm increasingly in favour of extending the Holofield concept to
> embrace stealth.

Also sounds good to me. We should ask the originator (Aaron, right?)

Noam