RE: [FT]Sensors and Sensibility[LONG]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:

> You misunderstood my point.
> 
> Komorov or other ship with weapon range in excess of 36 trying to
identify a
> group of mass 18 Minerva FFs at a range of 48 (FF are thrusting 1, but
> giving out signals as ). Passive identification range is 36" (OK
36.018"),
> so it is out of range. So the Komorov turns on active sensors, but
active
> sensor identification is only 36". Should the Komorov blast the
unknown
> blips within its weapons range or wait until they get to 36".

Tough choice to make.
 
> If identificaiton is based on 36mu, a ship with a class-4 beam (or
> equivilent) would be shooting at an unidentified target at its long
range.

Or at a target that si ASSUMED hostile, e.g. not sticking to regular
shipping routes, in prohibited air space, etc.
 
> Thus the suggestion for the change that a ship with weapons that reach
> further than 36mu have thier sensor identification based on the
maximum
> range of thier longest range weapon. So the Komorov could identify
anything
> within weapons range.

Personally, I have no problem with some of the really long range weapons
outranging the Identification range. Makes for some interesting
scenarios
(Sir, the bogeys are in engagement range, should I open fire? - Wait for
id - But sir...)...

This would allow for some variety in game play that could be
interesting? 

Especially since the opposing player has to elect to almost coast in to
get this advantage, I don't mind much at all. One serious bout of thrust
and he'd be identified.

Mind you, I'm not thinking competitive n points battles here. Mainly
thinking scenarios.

Cheers,

   Derk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine

iD8DBQE7OJX8JXH58oo6ncURAlICAKCT4g7l+m46W46nUIJPMx23EZq5hgCfZg7V
e2HyA5sYaPQG1J4BhCYBHjo=
=OofE