Re: Updated Electronic Warfare Rules

-----Original Message-----
From: John Leary <john_t_leary@pronetusa.net>
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Saturday, July 10, 1999 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Updated Electronic Warfare Rules

>Phillip Pournelle wrote:
>>	     >>Detection range for passive systems is too
>>	     short.  It is entirely possible for an unstealthed
>>	     Mass 100 ship (with no thrust, or thrust 2 if it's
>>	     coming at you) to get within 6" of a passive
>>	     civilian ship--or an asteroid of the same size
>>	     could do the same--without being detected at all.
>>
>XXX
>     It is wildly unlikely that a real civilian ship will have
>passive sensors.  As far as a military ship sneaking up on
>the civilian, thats why they have the billion dollar sensor/
>ECM systems.	JTL
>XXX
>...Snip...more snippage, with most of the content, I agree.
>
>Bye for now,
>John L.
>

    I think the confusion comes from the difference between EM passive
systems and visual sensors like a telescope.  I've got seperate rules
for
each.  We've been told that Space drives create an enourmous EM
signature
and that is why EM passive systems can detect drive systems in addition
to
active emmisions.  Now imagine what would happen if you were driving
around
with a Buzzard RamJet!	A Flare in the darkness...