Re: Sensors

Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
> 
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> 
> > At 4:53 PM -0400 6/1/01, Roger Books wrote:
> > >
> > >With beyond 36" sensors I will just run into non-spoof range and
> > >look.  I don't care much what you show me unless you want to
> > >divide your forces and let me defeat  you in detail.
> >
> > True, on a small table that is quite easy. Also as most games are
> > run, its not much use. But one of my wishes is to work up a means of
> > having campaigns that take place on spaces larger than the table.
> > Effectively a system battle that is more than the table top. When
you
> > consider the size of a system even just ours, its very far from the
> > orbit of a planet like earth to the orbit of say Jupiter.
> 
> Find a copy of FASA's Renegade Legion: PREFECT.  It contains a primer
on
> invading starsystems, and the game is about (you guessed it) taking a
> star system by storm.  It includes a circular map, star centered (of
> course), for moving ships around, and has rules for in-system jumps.

	Prefect is indeed a really good source of information -- it's a
pity
that the game doesn't live up to the sourcebook (after devoting pages to
vector-based interceptions and spheres of manuver, your tactics on the
map are 'place ships wherever you want them to be' with no actual
interception at all). The unfortunate part about Prefect is that the
sensors they suppose are less capable than current sensors when it comes
to detecting ships. A 100-ton space fighter could NOT manuver at
multiple G's with a reaction drive for hours without being picked up, as
they suggest, even going against 20th century sensors. I don't believe
that our technology will have devolved in the interim.
	Their interstellar detection method is extremely interesting,
albeit
possibly not applicable to FT. It also offers one of the best (IMO,
essentially the ONLY good) justifcation for having both battleships and
fighters in the same game....

-Brian Quirt