[GZG] Re: RE: Stealth, ECM and FCS suggestion (long)

> From: J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
> --- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

>> - For material based stealth, like I have with the New Israelis I do
>> like the mechanic of _automatic_ loss with damage.

>>
> "When a ship takes threshold checks, roll for EACH hexagon as for any
> other system.  The number surviving is the remaining level of stealth.
> Stealth **cannot** be repaired during the course of a game."

I guess I blanked on that last sentence. Automatic loss of stealth  
should still be marginally less expensive than thresholdable stealth,  
but that's likely in the noise at FT's granularity.

> The problem with tieing stealth to hull rows is twofold.  First, we
> wanted more than 4 levels above "none".  Second, it seems that 3-row
> and 5-row designs will be official soon, and you have to allow for
> stealth in these designs.  Divorcing stealth from the hull rows,  
> solves
> both of these.

I think your higher levels are reasonable reflections of extrmeme  
stealth/ECM/partial cloaking PSBs. Tying Stealth 1 and 2 to varying  
hull rows was easy enough, so higher levels could be done the same  
way. Either or. There is definitely an appeal to the chance of	
blowing all stealth at Thresh-1, or keeping full stealth through  
Thresh-3.

> Finally, I tied the cost of Stealth to the TMF factor in the
> construction process, whereas the WDA version it is tied only to HULL
> and ABLATIVE ARMOR.  (I think the WDA values are low).

I tried a TMF factor costing as well, and liked the hull/armor	
better. Just personal taste, I think. Tying it to Hull/Armor raises  
the temptation of going more fragile to keep costs down. Even so,  
Stealth 2 makes most ships of a given class cost about as much as a  
ship of the next class larger. For example, the NI Stealth CE costs a  
bit more than the "standard" Hull CH.
WDA stealth (or at least NI versions of it) also have the passive  
firecon restrictions and maximum (24 MU) ranges for weapons without  
violating stealth. These would, could arguably be tightened further  
for higher stealth levels.

>> - I don't like the idea of enhanced FCS causing other systems to be
>> more expensive. Perhaps the cost of the FCS needs to be some factor
>> of %weapon mass of the ship.
>
> If the FCS enhances the RBs of all direct fire weapons, I don't see  
> how
> you can point cost it without effectively increasing the cost of all
> direct fire weapons in proportion, but I would like to see an example
> of what you mean.

I thought it needlessly complicated ship costing. I could well be  
wrong though,
since the only way I see to do it without adding different  
complications (which is what my %weapon mass idea would have done)  
would simply be to make enhanced/superior FCS cost 15/30 points fixed  
or some such. Fixed (high) cost has an appeal in that it would be a  
fairly high cost impact for small ships, and a smaller relative  
enhancement for larger ships.
>>

>> - There needs to be an upper range limit band on some weapons..
> Depends on how you look at it..

OK

> I am not sure that "Jamming" as you describe is different than a more
> detailed ("Advanced Option Rules") use of ECM systems.  This would
> include rules where a ship could try to use its ECM to appear as a
> larger or smaller ship (used alot in Weber's HH), but I see that as
> allowing the ECM to affect the information given by the other ship's
> sensors, rather than its FCS.

That assumes a FoG of War at the game table that keeps bogeys (or  
"false signature" minis in play). Which is fine as far as it goes.  
I'm more interested in ships being able to shield other ships  
partially or completely from incoming fire.

>
> As for protecting ships "deeper in the formation", we can lift a  
> simple
> idea from B5 Fleet Action to apply to the base platform of the ECM
> rules I posted:
>
> 1) For each enemy ship within 1 mu of the line of fire with an  
> active...

Something like that, yes, but 1 MU is very tight.

> Slightly more complex and powerful would be to give a varying level of
> protection for various levels,

I like this better. ALternatively, you could simplify, split the  
difference and make the ECm field +XMU range to 2 or 3 MU radius  
around the ship, period.

> Area Effect ECM systems, with larger radii would then be more MASS
> above the base value.

'Natch

I, Brazen Gnome   (Noam Izenberg)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l