Re: [GZG] RE: Stealth, ECM and FCS suggestion (long)

--- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> I finally had a chance to look at this. It has a nice next step above
> the ideas I've been using.
> 
> A couple comments:
> - FCS is essentially a proxy for ECCM. Enhanced and Superior sensors 
> should also play in to this, since those systems are already in the  
> game (At least FT/MT)

We use sensors as "is anybody out there?" kind of thing, with FCS
representing everything needed to change that detection into a firing
solution.  Air analogy being search radar and detectors vs. targeting
radar or guidance system lock, naval analogy being submarine sonar vs.
target plotting.  The sensors in both cases can be used in either
active or passive modes.

The advantages/liabilities of differing tech level Sensors in our games
come in as the information that a player gets as to the size and
emissions of a target (modified by its Stealth and ECM).  Things like
determiing what size Target #1 is, etc.  I thought that this is beyond
the scope of stealth/ecm.  (and it is still in a state of flux for us)

> - For material based stealth, like I have with the New Israelis I do 
> like the mechanic of _automatic_ loss with damage. Stealth like that 
> should be somewhat cheaper than thresholdable stealth that can be  
> repaired.

Read the "stealth" section in my original post again.  (** for emphasis
now):
"When a ship takes threshold checks, roll for EACH hexagon as for any
other system.  The number surviving is the remaining level of stealth. 
Stealth **cannot** be repaired during the course of a game."

The problem with tieing stealth to hull rows is twofold.  First, we
wanted more than 4 levels above "none".  Second, it seems that 3-row
and 5-row designs will be official soon, and you have to allow for
stealth in these designs.  Divorcing stealth from the hull rows, solves
both of these.

Additionally, the system I proposed allows a ship to loose more than 1
level of stealth to a single threshold; even a superior stealth ship
can loose all 5 levels if the rolls are unlucky.  Conversely, A ship
might survive a couple threasholds with full stealth, then loose it all
at once later.

Finally, I tied the cost of Stealth to the TMF factor in the
construction process, whereas the WDA version it is tied only to HULL
and ABLATIVE ARMOR.  (I think the WDF values are low).

> - I don't like the idea of enhanced FCS causing other systems to be  
> more expensive. Perhaps the cost of the FCS needs to be some factor  
> of %weapon mass of the ship.

If the FCS enhances the RBs of all direct fire weapons, I don't see how
you can point cost it without effectively increasing the cost of all
direct fire weapons in proportion, but I would like to see an example
of what you mean.

On the other hand, if various levels of FCS have a different effect
than what I propose, then <shrug>

> - There needs to be an upper range limit band on some weapons.  
> Assuming that a standard FCS in FB1 can target ships at 48 mu (and no
> enhanced FCS is required to fire heavier beams), it could be argued  
> that 12 mu is the actual effective maximum range of a B1 as far as  
> the capability to deliver damage to a target. Enhancing FCS might  
> give a +1 to hit _within_ range bands, or maybe ekeing another mu or 
> two out of maximum range, but I don't think making a B1 with 20 mu  
> range just because of FCS feels right.

Depends on how you look at it.	Since FT is generic, you can PSB it the
other way too, e.g.: Enhanced FCS puts more of the pulses of the B1 on
target, allowing damage to be caused at longer ranges, or allows the
continuous beam to dwell more on the target at longer ranges, or allows
the dispersed array to focus on a single point at longer ranges, etc. 

> 
> Then there's Jamming. What would be very cool is to have a system  
> capable of protecting ships _behind_ or within an area of effect of a
> jammer. The jamming ship itself can work one of several ways - it can
> be a Beacon - drawing enemy targeting to itself (i.e. making hte  
> jammer easier to target), or it can be a source of major interference
> and benefit from its own jamming. Ships within or behind the area of 
> effect (determined by center to center LOS through the jamming area  
> are protected by the Jammer's field. This would be a _huge_ new  
> tactical variation for FT, and actually allow fleet formations to  
> interpose units and protect key elements (say of a convoy, or damaged
> ships, or VIPs, or flagships, etc...). Jammer area of effect would be
> probably 1-3 mu radius, with cost/mass going up quickly - something  
> like 2/6/18 mass.
>

I am not sure that "Jamming" as you describe is different than a more
detailed ("Advanced Option Rules") use of ECM systems.	This would
include rules where a ship could try to use its ECM to appear as a
larger or smaller ship (used alot in Weber's HH), but I see that as
allowing the ECM to affect the information given by the other ship's
sensors, rather than its FCS.

As for protecting ships "deeper in the formation", we can lift a simple
idea from B5 Fleet Action to apply to the base platform of the ECM
rules I posted:

1) For each enemy ship within 1 mu of the line of fire with an active
ECM system of Quality equal to or greater than the Quality of the
firing ship's FCS, increase the effective range to the target by 1 mu +
1 additional MU for each level the ECm has above the FCS.  e.g. a
Standard FCS fires on an enemy ship.  there are 3 other enemy ships
within 1 mu of the line of fire; 1 dmage and operating at level
2(basic), one operating at level 3 (standard), and one operating at
level 4 (enhanced).  Add +0 MU for the Basic system (as this is less
tha the FCS Quality), +1 MU for the Standard system, and +2 MU for the
Enhanced system, totaling +3 MU.

2) For each enemy ship within 1 mu of the Target with an active ECM
system of Quality equal to or greater than the Quality of the firing
ship's FCS, increase the effective range to the target by 1 mu + 1
additional MU for each level the ECm has above the FCS.  This is
cumulative with those in 1) above, but each system is counted only
once.

Slightly more complex and powerful would be to give a varying level of
protection for various levels,
e.g. Superior ECM vs Standard FCS (or Enhanced ECM vs. Basic FCS):
+3 MU range at 1 MU radius
+2 MU range at 2 MU radius
+1 MU range at 3 MU radius
Enhanced ECM vs Standard FCS (or Standard ECM vs Basic FCS):
+2 MU range at 1 MU radius
+1 MU range at 2 MU radius
etc.

Area Effect ECM systems, with larger radii would then be more MASS
above the base value.

J
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l