Re: Full Thrust Sensor Ideas

>Muttering to myself on a long drive, I came up with things to consider
when
>the Long Awaited But Well Worth It FT Sensor Rules arrive:
>1.  Making a fighter-sized "AWACS equivalent" will tend to displace
scout
>ships.  I would therefore say that scout ships have the room for higher
>power search radars and better processing ability, plus the endurance
to
>loiter indefinitely, which a fighter would not have.
***
One thought I had on this was to make Recon Fighters a remote extension
(client) for the Enhanced or Superior sensors on another ship (Server).
They can't do anything by themselves, hence there is still a place for
scout ships - Here's the text (updated) of something I sent to someone
who
contacted me directly (he saw my rules on modular fighters on Mark's
page)

Fighter based Enhanced sensors (Eff 2) would not do anything by
themselves,
but rather slave themselves to another ship (server) in the fleet that
has
enhanced (or better) sensors, and allow that ship to benefit by
calculating
the range to a target measuring from the fighter group (client), instead
of
the ship.  If the main ship loses it's sensors, the fighters give no
further benefit unless it can then link to another ship with enhanced
sensors.  Another benefit, the Server with the sensors may be located
within an ECM field, while the recon fighter is without.  In this case
the
server may make use of it's sensors without being blinded by friendly
ECM
(Although the opponent in this case will know that enchanced sensors are
in
use.)

Fighters with enhanced or superior sensors (Recon Fighters) must be
within
half the positive detection range of uplink ship's sensors in order to
communicate their sensor readings.

ECM: (Wild-weasel?)

In my opinion, ECM is a system that would seem rather difficult to cram
on
a fighter, but here's a thought (I haven't played with ECM, so bear with
me).  Similar to recon fighters, the Wild weasel ECM suite allows the
fighter to serve as a projection to the Area effect ECM on another ship.
 I
would basically allow the fighter to extend the existing ECM field to
any
ship within 6" of the fighter , as long as the fighter in no more that
12"
from a friendly ship mounting an Area effect ECM (i.e. the fighter is
within the AECM field itself)

As an alternative, the fighter could be considered to mount normal ECM
for
itself.  You may with the fighter to use it's ECM rig in either
configuration.	i.e.:
1) If operating independantly, may mask itself.
2) If operating in conjunction with area-effect ECM, the fighter extends
the area of effect.

For kicks, make the active use of either of these systems expend fighter
endurance - so you have limited duration missions, and to gain the most
benefit of these systems you need to rotate in fresh fighters.

For Plain FTII or FB construction, I would cost either of these fighters
the same as Heavy (30 per squadron) - they have no anti-ship weapon and
limited dogfighting (kill 1 enemy on roll of 6).  For my modular fighter
rules, Either system is Eff 2, cost 4.

***
>
>2.  Remote sensor devices should include Passive Sensor Buoys, which
could
>be stationary or set on an unalterable trajectory; Sensor Drones which
>would operate like Buoys except for being maneuverable; and Active
Drones,
>which would provide a burst of search radar (rather like a photographic
>flash off to one side); either put a Sensor Drone nearby to catch the
>signal, or use it as a decoy.
>3.  Stealth capability is included in standard ship's package; Enhanced
or
>Superior Stealth will cost perhaps as Streamlining and will reduce mass
>signature to 50% and 25% respectively (imagine his look when his
sensors
>finally get a good read on what he thought was a Mass 50 escort and
>realizes it's a Mass 200 SDN).  Stealth Fighters, Stealth Mines and
Stealth
>Missiles will also need to be considered.  Absolutely no Stealth
Planets.
>
>The AWAC line of thought sparked another idea: Variable Size Fighters.
>Some Noble soul wrote a page on Modular fighters with their various
system
>costs.  Could such a person work out costs for 1.5 Size Fighters
(Really
>Heavy Attack Craft, or Genuinely Long Range Recon Craft)?
***
Noble soul? is that a pun? Anyway - here's a thought: (note to readers,
-
this portion is based on my Modular Fighter Construction rules, so if
you
want to know what I'm talking about, go read 'em on Marks page)
Normal fighters are designed around an efficiency of 4 - some designs
push
that to 5.  Large Fighters are built around a different Frame Type: and
double the cost of propulsion systems.
Large Frame	  Cost 2   Eff 1     Damaged as normal	 (cost fighter
at
Eff-2)
Large,Heavy Frame Cost 4   Eff 2     Damaged as Lvl-1 screens  (Cost
fighter at Eff-2)

so a standard Recon fighter with limited Anti-Fighter ability is Eff 4,
cost 5 each (30 pts per squadron)
while a Large, Heavy Long range Recon fighter with Standard Anti-Fighter
ability is Eff 7 (5 for costs) and costs 15 each - (60 per squadron - as
you can only fit 4)  Expensive, but doable.  If using the FB, they can
stay
out and perform their mission for 9 turns!  Note that Large fighters,
while
fewer per squadron will probably cost much more because a) they have
thier
propulsion system cost doubled and b) they can cram more capabilities in
the frame. Maybe with the fleet book I need to look at Armored Fighters?

So there you go.  Comments? Flames?

Jared Noble