Re: Detection

The effervescent John Atkinson wrote:

> Logically, if ships are difficult to detect then they can get close to
> their targets easily.  This makes them impossible to defend against.
...

Yeehah. 10 points to the man. Another corrolary is that system defense
would
not consist of fleets, but rather Planet based mega-guns or missile
swarms,
designed to pick off atteckers at 40+ MU.

> I prefer a universe where incoming raiders can be detected, and where
> the FTL jump has a fairly large energy signature as well.  It just
fits >
better.  YMMV.

Gimme that universe.

and...

> In 1817 the state of the art of sensor technology was an 18-year old
kid
> on a horse on a hill wearing tights and a ridiculous hat.  What makes
> you think he could imagine a sonar suite?  Why should we be able to
> predict the details of a sensor system equally far in our future?

Speculation on the Hard SF tech of possible actual methods for detection
and
evasion is all well and good, but for a 22nd/23rd century sim with the
openness of FT, PSB is good for me.

Roger counters with an argument for less info for longer, and feels that
we'd never have battles if lots is known at a distance. Two things:
1) "So now the game is down to:  I pop in with more my opponent leaves
or does a quick pass to blow up a ship or 2 with SMs before hitting
the road." Why not? Seem like the lions share of Cold war (and no small
number of Hot war)encounters should work this way in RL. FT games don't
have
to represent the average encounter.
2) "In the situation you are discussing ships will NEVER fight save as a
last ditch defense." Nah. I've seen quite a few scenario descriptions
that
don't require the desperation setup.

Noam