From: merrick@rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) Subject: Re: BL rules ver. 1.5 To: gdw-beta@quark.qrc.com (gdw) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 20:10:53 -0700 (MST) > > 1. I assume that a folding array PEMS has as many fixed elements as it > [snip] > To do this properly, the designer should specify the folded surface area > and length of the array - this can be any amount from 0 up to the limits > of the ship length and surface area - and calculate folded and unfolded > performance of the sensor. True. This would be easier---hey, what *is* the folded area of a folding array, it's not in FFS. > > 3. Passive sensors receiving active signals: a passive sensor differs > > from an active only in that it cannot broadcast. > > Strictly speaking, this is quite untrue: a passive sensor relies on much > more sophisticated signal processing to be able to make sense of the > emissions it recieves; a passive sensor system is not just the reciever > section of an active sensor system. The point you're getting at _is_ true, > though: passive sensors are perfectly capable of recieving the broadcasts > of active sensors - and even the reflected signals of active sensors off > of other objects, and making intelligent use of them. Yeah, I know, but for the operation rules it's true. I was planning on writing up a astronomy lecture post on what you'd see at various wavelengths (frequencies for you radio boys in your comfy VLA type control rooms (do you detect my optical bias ;) > Furthermore, the difference in signal strength from an active sensor at > the target (where a passive sensor may be listening) and back at the > active sensor's own antennas is several orders of magnitude: the net > result being that a passive sensor doesn't really need a very large antenna > to be able to detect these signals. I'd argue that the passive sensor's > antenna size really doesn't matter as much as your rules indicate. I had it this way in the last version. This was one of my new changes :) I was thinking about AR missiles when I wrote it (HEPlaR ARMs were looking *very* scary with KE warheads). It is much simpler to go back to the original... and I like some of you wording as well. > 4) Explicitly noted that MFD's contain active sensors, and thereby force > the ship using them to "go active" against their targets. Good point on the active sensor list, and this as well! > 4. New Range Bands: In order to keep missiles from being impossible to lock, > Rather than dealing with this complication, it _may_ be reasonable to assume > that any object in the same hex as a ship with an operating AEMS or PEMS is > automatically detected when it enters the hex, if it wasn't before. At > least, this seems to be what GDW assumed. It'd be nice if BL said this... *sigh* > > Bogey Detection: > > This seems reasonable - I note that (if I read your "automatic" bogey > detection rule right) that even missiles that are "impossible" to lock > are automatically detected as bogeys at medium range, right? Yes. Unless the DMs push it above automatic---it's unlikely to be above Average regardless. > > The major difference is that it is allowed to go above > > Impossible to Imp+1, Imp+2, etc.. > > This is _ONLY_ for bogey detection, right? In other words, while > you can detect a bogey out to truly large ranges, you can't lock > the target until you're within extreme range of it. Yes. Only for BD. (that's the "major difference" between BD and Lock) >>While a jump entry, for example, would be immediately recognized as such, the >> chances that the short pulse of energy betraying it would be seen by a ship's >> sensors are very slim indeed. > > This is a whole can of worms that we should probably get into. How visible > is a jump entry? I'd suggest a -1 DiffMod, only on the turn when the ship > exits from Jumpspace. Yeah, a pain. If we assume that the flash is very short time duration then a non-directional sensor might get it, but there'd be a good chance a directional sensor would be looking the right way... "Skipper, we've detected a jump, but didn't image the source." > No, it's not. Really, we don't much care what happens out by Jupiter. > Given the way BL works, that's too far away to be much of a threat. Draw a > circule of maximum possible Lock-On radius, and compare it to the > Earth-Moon system, or to Earth's jump points. :-) True. I was thinking of CT :-) > Still, I like this bit; it gives the players a rationalization for knowing > that a bogey is out there, and gives the referee some guidelines for what > range to establish scenarios. You may want to playtest and tweak it a bit; > particularly at what point the bogey detection is automatic. We've used it a few dozen times. Works better blind with a ref. Pain in the ass without one. Lane (as a ref for roleplaying) uses it as a guideline for when we'd see something odd (it was his major question to me as astronomy-boy from day one) > > Lock-Ons can be made out to 2 x extreme range, but *only* > > if the target has had no BDs yet (this is Surprise, see below). The > > task for Locking at this range is IMP +2, and must be reduced by DMs to > > at least IMP to be attempted. All of these ranges are using the ACTIVE > > sensors range bands (see sensor rules changes below). > > Huh? I don't understand this; why do you want to do this, and how does it > relate to the passive versus active sensors discussion above? > > If I understand it correctly (and I don't think I do), then I'd suggest > deleting this rule, in favor better suprise rules and/or the passive > versus active sensor rules above. The idea was that a truely long range lock might be possible if the target wasn't "micro-evading" (ie: it is doing *nothing* to disguise it's position in space or its vector). It was to keep patrol ships from staying active all the time. I'm not all that attached to it, it was more of a surprise bonus thing (if my laser has an Reff of 500 hexes just what can I hit at that range?) It also plays to the fact that I'd actually prefer no hard limits on ranges---I'd rather let the task difficulty decide (a planet might have a size of -10 DMs, souldn't I be able to lock it and shoot my laser from say 100 hexes?) > Weapons Fire Nice. > > Sensing ship limits its scanning arc: > > I think this bonus might be too high; and what's to stop someone from > installing a suite of 12 sensors, so that each system can scan only a 30 > degree arc at an automatic -3 DiffMod? > > How about allowing multiple Lock-On or Bogey Detection attempts > on each target, instead? Hmm. I was trying to get at the rate of scan issue here, halving the volume (actually the field area) scanned means the detector can look twice---so I guess that'd work, but I wanted to have a sense for how *deep* the sensor could image. Maybe the DM could be stated to work like the MFDs DM only countering +DMs, but not reducing the base diff level. That or they allow the range doubling +DMs to be ignored... dunno, this was a new addition as well, and not as play tested (not really at all, actually). > > Results of Bogey Detection: > How about this: I like it. > > Surprise: > > When a target is locked, and it has no idea that the enemy is around (or > > doesn't care), it may be fired on with a modified range table. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > An odd idea for you: if a ship deliberately avoids expending the fractional > acceleration to be treated as "in combat" (in other words, if a ship > deliberately sets itself up as automatically "suprised"), can that ship > use an improved range table, or perhaps a -1 DiffMod to all weapons > fire tasks? Hmmm. You mean because it is a more stable weapons platform? If so, sure, but only if the target isn't jinking (for the range table). For the DM, what the target does wouldn't matter. > > Patrol ships *listen*, they quietly peer into the darkness. They wish > > they could just crank up the 480,000km AEMS array, but going active in > > an unknown area invites death--the first indication of an enemy might > > actually be the brilliant lances out of the black that kill you. The > > game of submarine-like cat and mouse is afoot! > > That's why you cram the largest AEMS into a small and (relatively) expendable > Warning and Control Ship, and send it out to light up the night. That's what > radar picket ships are for. Yup. Flashcube the bastards! > > The maximum number of targets that spinal (non-trainable) weapons can > > engage is equal to the maximum g's the ship is capable of -1 for each gturn > > spent on maneuver or evasion, +1 for each gturn spent on tracking. > > Huh? Why should a non-trainable weapon be allowed to engage more than > one target per turn? Er, this is badly worded. The idea is that a ship can only point X number of non-trainable weapons period. The total for the ship, not for each weapon. (does this make sense? how can a BB point 20 radial PAWs and still choose where it picks its facing?) Thanks for the comments. I've posted various versions, but this is the best bashing I've gotten. Excellent *wrings hands*. -Merrick From root Wed Nov 8 21:58:13 1995 Received: from qrc.com (quark.qrc.com [198.178.200.5]) by mail.missouri.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id VAA66586 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 21:58:12 -0600 Received: by qrc.com (5.65b/2.3-UTK) id AA04381; Wed, 8 Nov 95 22:59:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 22:59:32 -0500 From: Derek Wildstar Message-Id: <9511090359.AA04381@qrc.com> To: gdw-beta@quark.qrc.com, merrick@Rt66.com Subject: Re: BL rules ver. 1.5 Status: RO merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) wrote: > True. This would be easier---hey, what *is* the folded area of a > folding array, it's not in FFS. You're right - it's not! Why not let the designer pick any number he (or she) wants, all the way down to zero (it folds up and retracts inside the hull). The larger the folded size, the better the performance when folded - but the more space it takes up. What about accelleration or entry to an atmosphere with the arrays unfolded? It would make sense to me that the arrays would be stressed for some reasonable amount of accelleration (maybe the ship's MaxG?), but when it's deployed, the ship should probably be treated as unstreamlined. > Yeah, I know, but for the operation rules it's true. I just had visions of a player arguing that because "the rules say a PEMS is an AEMS that can't transmit", then he can use his AEMS in "passive mode" just like it was a PEMS. > I was planning on > writing up a astronomy lecture post on what you'd see at various > wavelengths (frequencies for you radio boys in your comfy VLA type > control rooms (do you detect my optical bias ;) I'd like to see that! > I had it this way in the last version. This was one of my new changes > :) I was thinking about AR missiles when I wrote it (HEPlaR ARMs were > looking *very* scary with KE warheads). Does the automatic lock-ons of objects in the same hex, combined with a ROF-800 SR-1 (and very-low-damage-value) laser help make you feel better? > [automatic lock-ons of objects in the same hex] > It'd be nice if BL said this... *sigh* Yes, but at least we can add it ourselves! > > [lock-ons at 2x extreme range] > > Huh? I don't understand this; why do you want to do this, and how does it > > relate to the passive versus active sensors discussion above? > > The idea was that a truely long range lock might be possible if the > target wasn't "micro-evading" (ie: it is doing *nothing* to disguise > it's position in space or its vector). Hmmm ... that's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I quite like it. How about this one: if a target isn't micro-evading and doesn't maneuver (in other words, it's not doing anything to disguise it's position in space or it's vector), then, until it does (micro-evade or maneuver), Lock-Ons and bogey detections are automatically maintained from turn to turn. As long as the target doesn't accellerate unexpectedly, it's easy to compute exactly where it is at any point, and relatively easy (since you know right were it is) to verify that it's still there. If (or when) it does accellerate on it's own, you loose the Lock-On or Bogey Detection as soon as it does, and have to roll for them normally. Captain: "Ensign, is that patrol ship still there?" Scan Ensign: "Yessir. He's just hanging there in orbit, hasn't accellerated at all since we've been watching." > It was to keep patrol ships from staying active all the time. So? That's what ARMs are for. :-) > It also plays to the fact that I'd actually prefer no hard limits on > ranges---I'd rather let the task difficulty decide I rather like that approach - but I fear it'd take an even-more complete revamp of the sensors rules to make it work. In particular, that'd mean that each -1 DiffMod effectively doubled the range of the sensor - and I think that's too much. A different sensor system (perhaps based on signatures, like 2300AD/Star Cruiser) might be needed to make it work. > Maybe the DM could be stated to work like the MFDs DM only countering > +DMs, but not reducing the base diff level. I think that would work - DiffMods for restricted scanning arc could only be used to counter + DiffMods for other circumstances, and in no case reduce the difficulty level below the base for that range. > Hmmm. You mean because it is a more stable weapons platform? If so, > sure, but only if the target isn't jinking (for the range table). For > the DM, what the target does wouldn't matter. OK. So some sort of + DiffMod for "stable platform". The major use of this would be battle satellites, space stations, installations on asteroids and moons and the like - which _can't_ microevade. Perhaps a +1 or +2 "stable platform" DiffMod? > Er, this is badly worded. The idea is that a ship can only point X > number of non-trainable weapons period. The total for the ship, not for > each weapon. (does this make sense? how can a BB point 20 radial PAWs > and still choose where it picks its facing?) Yes; that makes _much_ more sense! Thank you, and I agree. > Thanks for the comments. You're welcome ... I meant to reply to a few of the earlier versions, but I never got around to it. wildstar@qrc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Terrorist on the TML"