Re: A Stealth Primer (and [FT-AAR] a NAC/NI AAR - "Wargames")

At 12:31 PM 1/25/99 -0500, John Atkinson wrote:
>Izenberg, Noam wrote:
>> 1)	   Stealth Hull - comes in 2 levels and makes a ship harder to
hit.
>> Mass is same as partial and full streamlining., cost 50% more
(3/mass).
>> Stealth level 1 reduces enemy  range bands by 1/4.  Stealth level 2
>> (Super Stealth) reduces range bands by 1/3. Includes vs. Fighter ,
SML,
>> and PDS (i.e. fighters bust be within 5" or 4" to attack, SMLs must
be
>> within 5 "or  4" to acquire target,	PDS anti-ship at 5" or 4").
>
>OK, here's where I run into trouble.  See, I use the 3" radius. 
>Otherwise SMLs are just too easy to hit with.	Hell, with a 3" it's
>still pretty easy.  

Yes, John, but it's also pretty well established that you use vector. 
From
the description in Indy's AAR, it's pretty obvious Noam doesn't....

Besides, why would that change the % reduction?  Stealth-1 means the
SMLs
have to be within 2.25", and stealth-2 would mean the SMLs would have to
be
within 2"....

>> symbol: Black Hexagon next to damage track for each level. Stealth 1
>> ships cannot have Super strength hulls, Steath 2 ships cannot have
>> Strong or Super hulls.
>>	   PSB: Special hull construction and materials, sacrificing
hull
>> integrity for reduced sensor profile.
>
>I'd make it even more severe as far as hull strength goes.  One step
>more.

I have to agree here; I've never built a super hull, and only a couple
of
strong hulls.  Besides, since the stealth takes up 10% of your hull
space/level, and you still need decent engines to keep the enemy away,
you
have to have a weaker-level hull to fit weapons!  So while I don't think
you'd be losing much by upping the restriction, it should be changed
IMO.

>> 2)	   Stealth Fighter - Stealth fighters are +12pts/group and are
the
>> same as Heavy fighters except for PSB (stealthy hull
>> design/shape/materials rather than an active jamming or screening
>> system). Super-Stealth (Stealth level 2) fighters cost +24pts/group
and
>> act as having Screen 2 vs. PDS/ADFC/other fighters. This is more
>> balanced than forcing PDS/ADFC to have reduced range, IMHO, as the
>> latter way would give a range for fighters to be immune to ship-based
>> defenses.
>
>Erm. . . I wouldn't allow Stealth level 2 on fighters.  Doesn't sound
>balanced. 

Up the points cost, maybe.  From a level-by-level standpoint, stealth-1
for
12 points gets you a... 25% reduction in the chance of being hit (if I'm
doing the math right ^_^; ) while stealth-1 to stealth-2 gets you a
further
33% reduction, for the same 12 points.	So the second step should cost
more, maybe 16 points (which balances the percentages) for a stealth-2
cost
of 28 points/group.  Not much different, I guess, but it does offset
things
a *little*.  Okay, so looking at zero stealth to stealth-2 is "just" a
50%
decrease in damage dealt... but it doesn't feel like that on the table!

					Aaron Teske
					ateske@HICom.net
LAUNCH DAY!
A totally unprovoked attack on peaceful neighbors. Must be the race 
file. Does strange things.
		--Rick Kujecko, on the War Monger PRT in Stars!