Re: FT Sensor Rules -- Request for Comments [LONG]

Hey folks,

Yes, the ranges were a typo.  (8-)  I'm sticking with MT sensor
ranges, just for the sake of consistency.

Which brings me to this...

Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
> *I thought passive sonar outranged active sonar.  Perhaps it is what 
> your sensor is detecting.*

I think the main problem is that you can PSB it either way.  For
example,
experience on Earth tells us passive sensors are better than active
sensors.  However, you can theoretically set something up where the
passive signature of ships is so lost in the background (either by
distance or by some other effect), that the only way to detect targets
at range is to hit the sucker with enough energy that you get a definite
solid return off of it -- which has the unfortunate effect of lighting
you up like a Christmas Tree.  (8-)

(Take a look at the Gundam novels -- because jamming is so effective,
the Mk 1 eyeball becomes paramount again and all combat takes place at,
for space combat, at insanely close ranges.)

So, it becomes a playbility issue, and I'm thinking (and I'm guessing
Jon
was thinking, though he'll confirm/deny), that a ship needs good reasons
to go active.  Detecting targets at longer range and getting a firm
fire control lock seem to be solid enough reasons to give the entire
opposing side a free look and free shot at you.  (8-)

JGH

-- 
Jerry Han - jhan@warpfish.com - http://www.warpfish.com/jhan - TBFTGOGGI
"The snow is coming down, on our New England town, and it's been falling
all day long; what else is new? What can I do? But sing this Valley
Winter Song, I wrote for you" -- Fountains of Wayne,"Valley Winter Song"