Prev: Re: Modern Equivalents Next: Re: Albedo ACV's in Full Thrust

Re: FT3 Sensor Rules [Long]

From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <schoon@a...>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 11:12:58 -0700
Subject: Re: FT3 Sensor Rules [Long]

Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>What about "silent runnng" - running with engines at lower power
>(lower effective thrust, lower effective emissions) and weapons and
>firecons shut down - zero emissions?

Sure, although there's almost no such thing as Zero emissions (I know
what
you mean, though). You could represent this, and also stealth systems by
a
modifier reducing the LoI for the ship so operating/equiped.

For example, (and I'm pulling this right out of thin air) a silent
running
ship might have a LoI-2 modifier, and a special stealth ship might have
a
LoI-3 (or more) modifier.

This makes them harder to spot, and especially if they have an
electronics
suite to further lower the LoI, you could get a really interesting game
of
cat and mouse as the searcher gets LoI0, firmly establishing that
something
is out there, but doesn't know exactly where.

>And this more accurately simulates sub warfare (trying to find the
>enemy when he's running quietly).

Yup.

>What about some form of obnoxious ECM decoy that 'combined with
>silent running' could fool hostile weapons systems? Or a sensor bomb
>that temprarily blinds enemy vessels? Or even worse, might burn out
>sensitive sensors!

I intentionally made the rules so they didn't affect weapons fire to
avoid
the SFB style ECM /ECCM escalation. I figure once they figure out pretty
well where you are and get a good picture of your emissions, that's
enough
for weapons targeting.

However, decoys of that variety might be more effective at deceiving the
enemy about how many ships you have. A decoy might allow an admiral to
report more ships at LoI0 than he really has, or have a second formation
that the enemy must then react to.

As for a sensor bomb or sensor blinding, I'm dubious of the feasibilty
of
such a thing. It would have to be delivered close to the sensors, and I
suspect that "future" sensors would have cutouts to protect against
overloads, and most of their mechanisms would be vulnerable only to
weapons
fire.

Which is not to say that if you really want to have such a thing in your
universe, that you can't go right ahead and do it!

Thanx for the comments,
Schoon

Prev: Re: Modern Equivalents Next: Re: Albedo ACV's in Full Thrust