Prev: Re: [GZG] [HIST] Military Hackers Next: Re: Low-Tech Forces in DSII

Re: Full Thrust : Electronic Warfare

From: Jeff Lyon <jefflyon@m...>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 14:19:06 -0600
Subject: Re: Full Thrust : Electronic Warfare

At 11:08 AM 11/3/98 -0800, Phil wrote:
>At 11:37 AM 11/3/1998 -0600, Jeff Lyon wrote:
>>Basic Stealth/ECM Firecon Jammer:
>>Roll 1D6 for each firecon attempting to lock-on.  Negates lock on a
roll of:
>>6  vs. Superior Targeting sensors
>>5+ vs. Enhanced Targeting sensors
>>4+ vs. Military Targeting sensors
>>3+ vs. Civilian Targeting sensors
>	NO! NO! No...

Jeez, dude!  Take a valium...

>	Fire Control directors are not used to track targets, only to
>fire control systems.	They are a pencil width beam, you don't use them
>track targets, only to direct weapon systems...

Okay, if I understand your point, then a radar beam from a
control director is (very roughly) analogous to painting a target with a

I assume that this is what "locking on" means.	Once the targeting beam
on, it tracks the target as it moves. 

It can only be used once you know where to point it, hence the need for
both scanners and ECM or stealth.  Once you do know where to point it,
firecon is strong enough to burn through ECM/Sleath.  

This would be where you roll for success.  If I'm understanding you
correctly, then it wouldn't be necessary to roll every turn to lock on;
just the once.	If this is correct, then the roll for success should be
done by the firing ship.

So ECM/Slealth alone won't shrug it off once it's locked on.  What
An interposing asteroid?  Flying through nebulae/dust clouds/smog?  A
deployed between the target and firing ship?  Having a target maneuver
your aft quarter?  Bridge hit?	Switching targets?  Boneheaded Alien PSB

>	Fire Control Directors and scanners are two very different
>In some advanced systems such as AEgis they are combined together, but
>then the combined system does the two roles as a [separate?] function,
not as
>a combined function.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that what you describe as an
system today is the standard in 200+ years.  Would it be appropriate to
treat a FT ship with three firecons as having three independent systems
which have both capabilities and thus three times as many opportunities
successfully perform the scan function and then the targeting function
follows automatically?


Prev: Re: [GZG] [HIST] Military Hackers Next: Re: Low-Tech Forces in DSII