Another Take on CT Sensors

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
In the above missile example, maybe that's why you need a CSP (combat space patrol) .

Also note that, outside of the asteroid belt, there would have only been a -2DM penalty for the missile's size (using HG size DMs). An additional -2DM was applied for the interference of the sensing objects in the belt.

So, the missile will have a better chance of being dectected outside the belt.

I'm just worred about missiles being ship killers--those missile defense lasers aren't going to be useful if you can't detect the missile.

I'm thinking that the ECM program works the same with our without missile detection.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
In the above missile example, maybe that's why you need a CSP (combat space patrol) .

Also note that, outside of the asteroid belt, there would have only been a -2DM penalty for the missile's size (using HG size DMs). An additional -2DM was applied for the interference of the sensing objects in the belt.

So, the missile will have a better chance of being dectected outside the belt.

I'm just worred about missiles being ship killers--those missile defense lasers aren't going to be useful if you can't detect the missile.

I'm thinking that the ECM program works the same with our without missile detection.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
On rules, game-play IMHO strongly argues for #2, no reroll. The situation also argues for it especially once a ship starts firing it should be automatically detectable unless your sensors have been burned off.

I'm in agreement with you.

Plus, it will be easier for implementation in the game to just forget about sensor rolls after detection has been made.

If I'm playing with a hex board, I can put down a blob bogey if detection is made (but no lock has been made). And, once a lock has been made, I can use a ship counter.

Once a counter hits the board, it stays on the board. There will be no bricked subsequent sensor roll to remove it.

The only time I envision a counter being removed from the board once it appears (via detection) is if it (A) moves off past 90 hexes (outside detection range); (B) moves behind a planet or moon or asteroid or something like that; or (C) something hinders the sensing ship, like jamming.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
On rules, game-play IMHO strongly argues for #2, no reroll. The situation also argues for it especially once a ship starts firing it should be automatically detectable unless your sensors have been burned off.

I'm in agreement with you.

Plus, it will be easier for implementation in the game to just forget about sensor rolls after detection has been made.

If I'm playing with a hex board, I can put down a blob bogey if detection is made (but no lock has been made). And, once a lock has been made, I can use a ship counter.

Once a counter hits the board, it stays on the board. There will be no bricked subsequent sensor roll to remove it.

The only time I envision a counter being removed from the board once it appears (via detection) is if it (A) moves off past 90 hexes (outside detection range); (B) moves behind a planet or moon or asteroid or something like that; or (C) something hinders the sensing ship, like jamming.

 

[Plankowner]

Maybe you have to reroll every time you get a Computer/Bridge hit? Assumes the sensors might be damaged.

And I think a 200dTon ship at 2Gs should be easier to detect than the same ship at 1G. Simple energy. More energy is pumping out of the ship at 2Gs, so it should be easier to detect that energy. Twice as easy? Maybe not.

 

[Plankowner]

Maybe you have to reroll every time you get a Computer/Bridge hit? Assumes the sensors might be damaged.

And I think a 200dTon ship at 2Gs should be easier to detect than the same ship at 1G. Simple energy. More energy is pumping out of the ship at 2Gs, so it should be easier to detect that energy. Twice as easy? Maybe not.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
In your combat scenario above, HOW did the 400 Ton ship detect/lock onto the Herc?

Yep. Given the sensor rules as they stand now (barring any changes I may make of them as they grow into a good rules system), the ambush ship has a sensor profile like this...

400 ton Amush ship
PowerPlant-D
Computer-2

Sensors (Range/Roll)

Range 0: 2+
Range 1-2: 4+
Range 3-10: 6+
Range 11-30: 8+
Range 31: 9+
Range 32: 10+
Range 33: 11+
Range 34: 12+


The ambush ship rolled a 10. Range to the Herc was somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15 hexes.

DM's on the roll--

-2 for asteroid interference
+0 for the Herc's size
+5 for Sensor Ops skill (the ambushers have a nav operator with Navigation-6!)

We need 8+ to detect. We roll 10 -2 +5 for a total of 13.

Even without the uber sensor operator, the Herc as detected.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
In your combat scenario above, HOW did the 400 Ton ship detect/lock onto the Herc?

Yep. Given the sensor rules as they stand now (barring any changes I may make of them as they grow into a good rules system), the ambush ship has a sensor profile like this...

400 ton Amush ship
PowerPlant-D
Computer-2

Sensors (Range/Roll)

Range 0: 2+
Range 1-2: 4+
Range 3-10: 6+
Range 11-30: 8+
Range 31: 9+
Range 32: 10+
Range 33: 11+
Range 34: 12+


The ambush ship rolled a 10. Range to the Herc was somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15 hexes.

DM's on the roll--

-2 for asteroid interference
+0 for the Herc's size
+5 for Sensor Ops skill (the ambushers have a nav operator with Navigation-6!)

We need 8+ to detect. We roll 10 -2 +5 for a total of 13.

Even without the uber sensor operator, the Herc as detected.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by WJP:
--2-- Or, if something is detected, should it just remain detected--no roll required to "maintain" the lock over time? It will stay detected as long as conditions remain the same...that (A) the bogey stays in detection range (90 hexes in CT), and (B) doesn't confuse sensors with jamming or jamming missiles or something like that.

This one. Some but not all of the things that could happen would be moving behind an astral body, going out of range, tracker being hit in the bridge (is that like getting hit in the ), perhaps even a "solar storm"??

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by WJP:
--2-- Or, if something is detected, should it just remain detected--no roll required to "maintain" the lock over time? It will stay detected as long as conditions remain the same...that (A) the bogey stays in detection range (90 hexes in CT), and (B) doesn't confuse sensors with jamming or jamming missiles or something like that.

This one. Some but not all of the things that could happen would be moving behind an astral body, going out of range, tracker being hit in the bridge (is that like getting hit in the ), perhaps even a "solar storm"??

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That's one area David Weber has hit right-on in the Harrington novels.

You know...I'm just starting Book 3 tonight!

Good stuff. </font>[/QUOTE]I have all except the latest. The only thing I really dislike about Weber's writing, is that he is still based on the uber-numbers from the Starfire game that got him started. You know, like hundreds of ships-of-the-wall and thousands of missles. You know, WWII was not fought by hundreds of battleships and carriers, but by less than a hundred of each from all sides. He should restrain himself and his work would be better.

IMHO

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That's one area David Weber has hit right-on in the Harrington novels.

You know...I'm just starting Book 3 tonight!

Good stuff. </font>[/QUOTE]I have all except the latest. The only thing I really dislike about Weber's writing, is that he is still based on the uber-numbers from the Starfire game that got him started. You know, like hundreds of ships-of-the-wall and thousands of missles. You know, WWII was not fought by hundreds of battleships and carriers, but by less than a hundred of each from all sides. He should restrain himself and his work would be better.

IMHO

 

[Supplement Four]

UPDATE!

I've completed the Classic Traveller Sensor Rules. You can find them in this thread:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000349

The rules are presented in three separate posts plus one appendix. They're marked clearly in the beginning of the thread.

Check 'em out. Tell me what you think--if I've forgotten something (yes, I know I didn't address jammers), or if you can see a way to improve them.

I'm going to give them a test drive in my next RL game.

W.

 

[Supplement Four]

UPDATE!

I've completed the Classic Traveller Sensor Rules. You can find them in this thread:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000349

The rules are presented in three separate posts plus one appendix. They're marked clearly in the beginning of the thread.

Check 'em out. Tell me what you think--if I've forgotten something (yes, I know I didn't address jammers), or if you can see a way to improve them.

I'm going to give them a test drive in my next RL game.

W.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

BillD, Weber isn't using a WWII paradigm, he's looking at the age of sail. Specifically, he's looking at France v England during the 1700/1800s for the politics. Lord Nelson commanded a pretty large fleet of ships of the line.

Now, he is using the concept of technology changes (like the ones in WWII) to provide some of the extra dynamics in the story.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

BillD, Weber isn't using a WWII paradigm, he's looking at the age of sail. Specifically, he's looking at France v England during the 1700/1800s for the politics. Lord Nelson commanded a pretty large fleet of ships of the line.

Now, he is using the concept of technology changes (like the ones in WWII) to provide some of the extra dynamics in the story.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
The only thing I really dislike about Weber's writing, is that he is still based on the uber-numbers from the Starfire game that got him started.

I wasn't aware of Starfire, or his connection to it. Can you elaborate?

You know, like hundreds of ships-of-the-wall and thousands of missles.

I actually kinda like that stuff. It reminds me of those awesome scens in the new Battlestar Galactica, with those hoards of missiles flying both ways between the masses of fighters.

One interesting note between Weber and Traveller, though...

In Weber's universe, missiles have a long range, and lasers are relatively short ranged.

In Traveller, it's the other way around. You've got to get close if you have any hope of defeating an enemies' missile defense system--the missile is either going to run out of fuel or get blown to bits by the target's anti-missile fire.

But the Traveller lasers...crap! They're firing at over two light seconds and still sometimes hit (only a -5DM penalty).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
The only thing I really dislike about Weber's writing, is that he is still based on the uber-numbers from the Starfire game that got him started.

I wasn't aware of Starfire, or his connection to it. Can you elaborate?

You know, like hundreds of ships-of-the-wall and thousands of missles.

I actually kinda like that stuff. It reminds me of those awesome scens in the new Battlestar Galactica, with those hoards of missiles flying both ways between the masses of fighters.

One interesting note between Weber and Traveller, though...

In Weber's universe, missiles have a long range, and lasers are relatively short ranged.

In Traveller, it's the other way around. You've got to get close if you have any hope of defeating an enemies' missile defense system--the missile is either going to run out of fuel or get blown to bits by the target's anti-missile fire.

But the Traveller lasers...crap! They're firing at over two light seconds and still sometimes hit (only a -5DM penalty).

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BillDowns:
The only thing I really dislike about Weber's writing, is that he is still based on the uber-numbers from the Starfire game that got him started.

I wasn't aware of Starfire, or his connection to it. Can you elaborate?
</font>[/QUOTE]David Weber wrote the rules for the Empires add-on to Starfire back a long time ago. When Task Force Games revived Starfire on '84, Dabid Weber was one of the authors. He was involved up until his first book in '93 which was based on starfire and was co-authored with Steve White. They did two - Insurrection and Crusade based on Starfire.

Here's a link to FAQ on Starfire. Starfire FAQ

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BillDowns:
The only thing I really dislike about Weber's writing, is that he is still based on the uber-numbers from the Starfire game that got him started.

I wasn't aware of Starfire, or his connection to it. Can you elaborate?
</font>[/QUOTE]David Weber wrote the rules for the Empires add-on to Starfire back a long time ago. When Task Force Games revived Starfire on '84, Dabid Weber was one of the authors. He was involved up until his first book in '93 which was based on starfire and was co-authored with Steve White. They did two - Insurrection and Crusade based on Starfire.

Here's a link to FAQ on Starfire. Starfire FAQ