Re: [FT] Sensors (Option 2)

From: Jon Davis <davis@albany.net>
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 11 January 1999 01:43
Subject: Re: [FT] Sensors
<SNIP>
>A few comments:
>The range bands are not even.	Standard sensor rules have a range of
>54" for basic sensors.

True, but I thought to include a smaller one for favorable sensor
detection,
then thought that if we up the max detection range, it would facilitate
long
range weaponry and extend the existing ranges.

Revised thought:

Basic	     36"      1d6
Enhanced     54"      2d6
Superior     72"      3d6

would work better on reflection .

>Sensor "hits" need to be resolved in a single turn without having to
>record the level of "sensor" damage to the opposing ship.  (Yet
>another "damage" track?) Plus, to get any kind of sensor reading on
>an ESU superdreadnought would take a vast number of turns to obtain.
>
>If you rolled for sensors as beam weapons with rerolls added and
>ECM acts as level-1 (basic), level-2 (enhanced), level-3 (superior)
>screens,
>
>0 hits   No information
>1 hit	  Mass/TMF only and whether Mil or Civilian
>2 hits   Mass, Drives, Screens,  Structure
>3 hits   Data on all onboard systems as undamaged
>4+ hits  As above but all ship details including damage
>
>This way the sensor resolution is conducting without any bookkeeping
>from turn-to-turn.

Doh! (slaps forehead).	Absolutely correct. Keep it simple, I'm all for
that
:]

>Jon

Thanks for the input (and those damn fine spreadsheets !)

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au>
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 11 January 1999 14:07
Subject: Re: [FT] Sensors

> These senor ideas are very similar to what was on the list a couple of
>months ago (but I can't remember who was taking part). If you can find
the
>archives look for stuff in the first week of November (around the 5th I
>think) under Electronic Warfare.

Yup. Could have inspired me. I didn't stick a (TM)(R) note on it :)