Re: [FT] WotW #11 Stealth Systems - review

In message
<6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9E01D7336E@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
	  "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> 
> > Well, with the current range multipliers; the steps are as follows:
> 
> > Stealth Level	Range Multiplier	Difference
> > None		x1
> > 1		x1.33			x1.33
> > 2		x1.5			x1.125
> > 3		x2			x1.33
> 
> > So the step between 2 and 3 is the same as the step between none and
1.
> 
> My point is that each step should be a smaller increment. -
diminishing
> returns.
> 
> >Changing the range multipliers thus:
> 
> >Stealth Level	Range Multiplier	Difference
> > 1		x1.25			x1.25
> > 2		x1.5			x1.2
> > 3		x2			x1.33
> 
> I suppose this is do-able. My appraoch for stealth was the opposite of
the
> way you're looking at:
> I went for "effective weapon range" versus your "effective target
distance"
> The way I did it, 9" beam bands and 5" Torp bands) (stealth 1) is the
> equivalent of your range muliplier 1.33. I found 9" bands was more
tractable
> (rather faster)  than the, however simple, range multiplication math.
> For stealth 2, you get 8" inch beam bands, and 4" torp bands, or 1.5 x
> effective range. By that logic, stealth 3 would go 7" beam, stay 4"
for
> torp.

Well, I only added Stealth-3 for handling things like Blind Fields or
Mimbari Jammers. With your system it would be Stealth-4, I guess (6mu
beam, 3 mu torp). So a simple answer - use your range bands, MASS is 5%
per level, COST is 10x MASS.
Mimbari Jammer is Stealth-4, MASS is 20%
Blind Field is Stealth-4 that affects the ship carrying it, and has a
(small) area of effect (say 1mu radius) - I'm not sure what a 'balanced'
cost is for this.

> 
> A 1.25x range increase does not map well into my "effective weapon
range" -
> something like 10" beam bands, 5" torp bands. Also at 1.25, stealth 1
is
> very hard to use effectively. 1.33 is no picnic either, which is why
when I
> use stealth, I always go for stealth 2. 
> 
> I still favor the"effective weapon range" because its faster to
figure,
> therefore don't like "stealth 3" as 6"/3" unless the cost goes up
> exponentially.

Well, speed is better, so I agree.
> 
> > With a MASS of 5% of hull mass per level gives a cost of 10 times
the
> > MASS of the stealth system.
> 
> This I can agree on.
Ok.
> 
>
[snip and update] 
Missile/Fighter 'Lock-On' ranges are as follows:
Stealth
Level	Cinematic	Vector
none	6		3
1	5		3
2	4		2
3	4		2
4	3		2
> 
> These look good to me (except stealth 3).
> 
> > OTOH, I'm increasingly in favour of extending the Holofield concept
to
> > embrace stealth.
> 
> Also sounds good to me. We should ask the originator (Aaron, right?)
> 
> Noam
> 
Charles 

--