Re: NI/NAC AAR & Stealth

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, John Leary wrote:

>      Here is the problem:   Ship sensors suffer the reduction, not the

> weapons.   A weapons range could be reduced if its range was greater
> than the 
> modified sensor range.   Once a ship crosses the modified line of
> detection,
> it has been detected, and is a viable target at that range.	JTL

This assumes that sensor detection and targeting are identical. I'm
assuming that individual weapons require target lock to fire and hit.
Stealth frustrates the target lock.

Re: fighters
>      This again infers that the ships sensors are no longer
functioning
> and
> the PDS is operating under a 'local/visual' fire control system.
>      While I can agree with the 'smaller sensor signature' portion of
> the 
> statement the 'harder to hit' is only wishful thinking.   Once the
> fighter
> is on the sensor screen it is no different than any other fighter.  
JTL

Same as for ships. It's not the sensors. It's the target lock. It's
realy
just PSB for the game effect, but it is consistent.

Re: Broadside arcs
>      And exactly how would you use this concept to defend a planet or
> space
> station?   The ships are designed to fight while withdrawing from the
> combat.
Different ships for different roles. Some system defense ships are not
designed this way. However, if an anemy decides not to give chase to a
defending stealth ship and intstead attack the desired target
base/planet,
they will present a flank/rear to the long range weapons of the stealth
defenders and be picked off with the death of a  athousand cuts.

Offest arcs are primarily offensive in nature, to my analysis, but they
vertainly have use on the defense.

Noam