Re: [FT] Simple cloaking system proposal

Hi all,

Binhan wrote:

>A cloaked ship can be detected based on the amount of thrust it
uses....So the cloaked player announces how much thrust was >used to
maneuver this turn and must roll higher on 2d6 than the thrust number to
remain "cloaked" otherwise his position is >given away and may be fired
at as if he were one range band further away to simulate the partial
cloak.	This roll is for >each turn, so a cloaked ship can fade in and
out of cloak if it uses too much thrust.

Another good idea...thats three nice limiting mechanics now.

1) Half thrust.
2) Plot movement 1 turn ahead.
3) Void cloak based on thrust used.

I like 1 and 3 equally. I think the approach I would chose would be
based on the background of the game I was playing. Which is a cowards
way of saying I can't choose between them...

************************************************************************
****************
Eric wrote:

>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
>forty dice worth of them.

Hah! Only 40 dice worth! Hah!....I'll be hiding behind this here moon
until you're gone then...

Well, in this situation I think a combination of high velocity and idea
no. 3 (or even 1 or 2 if one is feeling brave enough) might be a
solution. But even if its not then it may just be better to fight
without the cloaks activated, or only use them sparingly when they will
do some good.

************************************************************************
*********************
Beth wrote:

>In vector would you drop it to 1mu or something?

I've only used vector 3 times  :-(  (My fellow gamers go very pale in
the face and mutter dark curses if I mention vector to them), but off of
the top of my head I would reduce the radius by half to 1.5mu. This
could still be bad for a cloaked vessel, get one accurate volley of
salvos in and its looking at up to 6 missiles it can't do nowt about.

I suppose I should have qualified from the beginning that I am basing
the cloak concept in a cinematic not vector environment. Silly boy me.

************************************************************************
****************
Grant wrote:

>I would think limiting them to 3 mu would be fine, and would also
reflect 
 >the difficulty detecting the cloaked ship.  I would be inclined to
limit 
 >fighter's attack ranges to 3mu as well though.  I would allow torpedo
fighters
 >to attack at -3.  Roll a 6 and you do 3 points of damage.  

Attack range of 3 mu? Why not, after all with secondary burns it
shouldn't be too difficult for a fighter group to get within range. And
it keeps it nice and consistent with

As for the fighter torpedo attack why not go the whole hog and say that
4, 5 and 6 hit as normal but damage caused has the -3 modifier applied
(eg: score of 4 = 1 dp, and so on).(representing a mini depth charge run
or something along those lines).

************************************************************************
*******************
Oerjan wrote:

>Hm. If it cuts the thrust rating, I don't think I'd want to pay even
this 
>much for it - the main reason to use such a system is to get into
position 
>to use your own tricky-to-aim weapons (usually short-ranged and/or 
>narrow-arced) without getting too badly shot before you get to fire
them, 
>and if your thrust rating is reduced your chances of getting into
position 
>to fire  will drop radically.

Well, as you've no doubt seen, we are upto 3 different ideas now on how
the partial cloak ties in with movement :-) , 
Could ideas 2 and 3 (from the above list in my reply to Binhan) be both
based upon a system of equal mass and cost? Would idea 1 be possible but
on a smaller or less expensive version? I don't mind personally going
with a cheap version 1 type or more expensive version 3 type, but I do
see your point...

>If it doesn't cut the thrust rating, it is worth a than the FB2 Vapour 
>Shroud. Mass*4 could be a bit low considering how much more this 
>stealth/cloak system protects against (P-torps, K-guns, missiles etc);
but 
>it depends a lot on how the exact effects against missiles/PBs.

I think I will be going along with Grants suggestions here re salvo
missiles/heavy missiles, just half the attack radius from 6mu to 3mu.
For AMT's reduce the effect by 1 range band. For PBL's, nova and wave
guns half (round up) the damage dice but leave the blast/effect radii
unaltered.

So what would suggest mass/cost wise for a Type 1 with the above
effects, vs a Type 2/3 with the above effects? At these levels of game
mechanic interactions I'd best back out of the costing/mass
game...pythagorus is my stop point in maths ;-) .

************************************************************************
**************************
Thanks again everyone for the input. I know this may not be to every
one's tastes but I for one would like to use it, provided it is
reasonably balanced in effect. Actually as long as it's not so
imbalanced as to be a gross advantage, if it's unbalanced as in more
dangereous to the user's then I'd still be happy to go with it...cue
evil maniacal laughter...

Regards,

Matt Tope