RE: [FT]Sensors and Sensibility[LONG]

True, but then why would you have scouts? Yes. scouting other systems
without endangering a carrier. And inter-system communication (courier
duties). I would prefer NOT to see fighters used in this way. I would
prefer
to give the picket duties to CTs or FFs. 

I always assumed that the primary duty of the BDN and SDN fighter groups
was
to screen the BDN or SDN *from* other fighters and missiles (with only a
secondary roll as an attack asset). Keeps you from having to bring a
carrier
to _every_ duty of the BDN or SDN.

Makes me wish, once again, that there were more people in my area that
played FT. It would give me an excuse to use the 20 or so scouts I have.

-----
Brian Bell
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Griffin [SMTP:carbon_dragon@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:32 AM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	RE: [FT]Sensors and Sensibility[LONG]
> 
> In this kind of scenario, you'd probably actually
> want ... gulp... scouts? Basically expendable ships
> who could go see what those bogeys were so they
> could be engaged?
> 
> I wonder too given the invulnerability of fighters
> to anything but other fighters or Kra'vak scatterguns
> (until they attack) whether they wouldn't be the right
> vehicle for sensor scouts. They could be fitted with
> sensors instead of guns and scout ahead of the fleet.
> Could explain why some SDNs have 1 fighter squadron
> (not much good on the attack, but great for scouting
> because they can get there fast and can't be shot
> down).
> 
> --- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> > Yep. Interesting scenarios.
> > Sector is under "radio silence" and "quiet mode". 
> > 
> > You don't know if they are friendlies getting close
> > enough for
> > point-to-point communications or if they are a group
> > of stingships closing
> > in for the kill.
> > 
> > 
> > -----
> > Brian Bell
> > -----
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	Derk Groeneveld [SMTP:derk@cistron.nl]
> > > Sent:	Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:02 AM
> > > To:	'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'
> > > Subject:	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
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail