Re: [FT] Simple cloaking system proposal

Okay, replied to my own post.

I guess I wouldn't have much objection to perhaps having a staged cloak
of
sorts, where there's a "full cloak" that goes by the traditional rules
and
fully phased out of reality, while there's a "partial cloak" that allows
limited visibility under the means given here.	Although I still like
the
regular rules better.

E
(aka StiltMan)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [FT] Simple cloaking system proposal

> I hate to be a poo-poo on this, but this cloaking system would be
completely
> useless in my circles.  Especially with the half thrust.  If I could
see
> those guys
> coming I'd hose them down with every plasma bolt in the fleet.  In a
5000
> point engagement, if I'm carrying them at all I'm probably sporting
around
> fourty
> dice worth of them.  If you've actually got enough thrust that I'm in
doubt
> as to
> where you'll be under cloak I'll fire them in half bursts in
continuous
fire
> along
> the arc you'd have to travel to bring your weapons to bear.  So what
if
I've
> got
> a -3 DRM?  It's not like you're going to be shooting back while you're
still
> cloaked.
>
> I'll stick with the regular cloaking rules, with a few house rules to
make
> dealing
> with area effect weapons simpler.  Our house rules for that go like
this:
>
> 1.  Area effect weapons.... simply ignored while cloaked.  (PSB: 
phasing
> cloak.)
>
> 2.  Planets and asteroids... not ignored.  (Our asteroids and planets
don't
> move,
> so this is easy to deal with.  PSB:  large gravity wells pull you back
into
> phase if you
> fly that close to them.)
>
> 3.  Your _own_ area effect weapons... can't be fired until the next
turn
> after you
> decloak.  Turn rationale is that cloaking and decloaking happens
during
the
> movement
> phase, and you can't write move orders with area effect weapons
included
if
> you don't
> know where you are.  (PSB:  it takes a little while to get your
bearings
to
> be able to put
> your weapons into an accurate point of space, and the disorientation
of it
> is too much to
> be able to do it on short notice once you're decloaking.  Not sure how
this
> works out
> for the turn when you go _into_ cloak, but I guess there's nothing
stopping
> you.)
>
> 4.  Wave guns... cannot be charged while cloaked.  This balances out
the
> idea of
> charging tons of cloaked wave guns and firing them and then recloaking
to
> protect
> yourself from retaliation.  (PSB:  Too much energy buildup and it's
> impossible to conceal.)
>
> 5.  If you have cloak-capable ships, you _are_ allowed to have them
start
> the game
> cloaked, as long as you put down a mooring point in space at your
start
> location on the
> board to state where you're tracking from.
>
> 6.  Fighters... _are_ allowed to be launched in the act of decloaking,
but
> must be
> recovered with secondary moves if they're landing, if at all.
>
> This'll also make cloaking systems easier to work with, balances them
out
> with area
> effects in both directions, while still giving enough of the feel of
> submarine warfare that
> it's a bit of an interesting game trying to play with them.  They can
work
> against you as
> much as they work for you, since setting up grandiose ambushes from
long
> range is
> vulnerable to your enemy pulling unexpected maneuvers that put them in
the
> wrong place
> when you come out of cloak.  However, short cloaks are still rather
> effective in tactical
> maneuvers if you use them intelligently (and against fast ships, it's
still
> a little bit of a
> crapshoot, although against slow ones they're just deadly).  Some of
this
is
> usually
> useful enough that they mostly make up for the expense of packing
cloaking
> devices
> in the first place.
>
> Cloaked carriers have been used before in our games, but over time
that
> concept kind
> of fell by the wayside because even cloaked soap bubbles are still
expensive
> enough that
> the fighter numbers go down enough that if they're prepared for massed
> fighters much at all it
> ceases to be particularly effective.
>
> E
> (aka StiltMan)
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "matt tope" <mptope@omnihybrid.com>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [FT] Simple cloaking system proposal
>
>
> > Grant wrote:
> >
> > >I've been thinking about this some more.  One possibility would be
to
> >  >require the cloaked ship to plot one additional turn in advance. 
This
> would
> >  >further restrict it's maneuvering with regards to other ships
without
> making
> >  >it completely out of touch.  The PSB would be that the cloak
reduces
the
> >  >incoming navigation data and makes the ship slower to respond to
outside
> >  >activity.
> >
> > Another interesting idea. Personally I prefer your idea limiting the
> cloaked vessel to half thrust,
> > but there is no reason why the above idea couldn't be substituted in
place
> of the half thrust option
> > if people liked that better.
> >
> >
> > >The basic idea would be to reduce the effect of missiles by about
half.
> >
> > I was also thinking about this some more this afternoon and came to
a
> similar conclusion myself. I like the -3 from the salvo missile lock
on
> roll, but as the cloaked vessel couldn't shoot any missiles down and
if
it's
> thrust is halved as well it could be in real trouble. At least against
PBL's
> a cloaked vessel could be screened as well and gain some measure of
> protection. So, in response, I was thinking of limiting the salvo
missiles
> detection radius to 3mu. That way cloaked vessels are hard to hit with
salvo
> missiles but if the salvo is especially well placed then the cloaked
vessel
> is still at risk. If cloaked vessels are subs then PBL's are depth
charges
> and salvo missiles are anti submarine mortars.
> >
> > >I'd reduce the impact of Nova cannon and Wave Motion Guns
similarly.
> >
> > Hmmm...tempted to let area effect weapons work as normal, but then
again,
> the cloaked vessel would be easier to hit with them...mmm. How about
(as I
> think you were suggesting) reducing the number of dice rolled to
reflect
the
> uncertainty of the targets exact location, half the number of dice
(round
> up), but leaving the blast radius as normal?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matt Tope
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>