Fixed Passive EMS

[Tupper]

I noted, in looking at Battle Rider, that a lot of large starships are listed as having Passive EMS with range 8. This seems a bit odd, since the rules for passive EMS (in Brilliant Lances or Fire Fusion and Steel) state that a fixed array can only be built on a ship with a particular length *unmodified by configuration*.

Translating these lengths into hull sizes, I see the following correspondence:

Hexes Diameter Tonnage
1 3.5m 2
2 5m 4
3 10m 40
4 20m 300
5 40m 3000
6 90m 30000
7 200m 300000
8 400m ? (I'm guessing 3 million)

I had a look at the Brilliant Lances ships throughout the books, and found a few cases that violated these rules:

400 tonne Admiral Victrix with 5 hex fixed PEMS
2000 tonne Vlezhdatl with 5 hex fixed PEMS
16 tonne Wildbat fighter with 3 hex unspecified PEMS (I'm presuming it's fixed)
200 tonne Hiver Utility Vessel with 4 hex fixed PEMS
2750 tonne Maggart Stretched Clipper with 6 hex fixed PEMS
0.5 tonne TL12 semi-independent missile with 1 hex unspecified PEMS (I'm presuming it's fixed)
0.5 tonne TL14 semi-independent missile with 3 hex unspecified PEMS (I'm presuming it's fixed)

Barring the missiles (whose length I'm not sure of) any of these ships would qualify for the diameter if its *actual* length was used. Also, barring the missiles and Vlezhatl, the problem cases are in later volumes (Reform Coalition Equipment Guide).

This made me wonder if the *unmodified by configuration* remark should be removed. However, this would make some earlier ship designs a bit incongruous, for example (assuming warships want as long a Passive EMS range as possible if fixing their array):

400 tonne (48.5m) Gazelle or Fiery Close Escorts should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding).
200 tonne (51m) Lord Baltimore Yacht should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding)
400 tonne (61m) Shukugan SDB should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (instead of 4 hex).
400 tonne (55m) Ueknou Corsair should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (instead of 4 hex).
150 tonne (46.5m) Chatl Leader Scout should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding)
400 tonne (66m) Zhdits Destroyer Escort should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding)
2000 tonne (90m) Vlezhdatl Strike Cruiser should probably have a 6 hex fixed PEMS (rather than 5 hex)
2080 tonne (144m) Aurora Clipper should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than 4 hex)
500 tonne (75m) Covenanter Clipper could have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding). Although here, I'd argue it would have the folding PEMS from the Scout part.
20 tonne (20m) Armed Gig could have a 4 hex fixed PEMS (instead of 2 hex).
15 tonne (15m) Rampart Fighter could have a 3 hex fixed PEMS (instead of 2 hex).

Where do other people stand on this?

On the one hand, there seem to be more snafus in my second list than the first (if one doesn't count all the capital ships in Battle Rider with 8 hex fixed arrays, and who look a bit questionable even if they have elongated configurations).

On the other hand, passive EMS seem a bit dubious in combat at the moment (short ranges, unless they're folding, in which case they preclude evasion and make the ship easier to detect by active sensors), so they could probably use a little love. Giving Close Escorts and the Destroyer Escort fixed passive arrays would enable them to be a bit sneaky in combat (evade and use passive EMS for detection).

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Tupper,

I noted, in looking at Battle Rider, that a lot of large starships are listed as having Passive EMS with range 8. This seems a bit odd, since the rules for passive EMS (in Brilliant Lances or Fire Fusion and Steel) state that a fixed array can only be built on a ship with a particular length *unmodified by configuration*.

Translating these lengths into hull sizes, I see the following correspondence:

Hexes Diameter Tonnage
1 3.5m 2
2 5m 4
3 10m 40
4 20m 300
5 40m 3000
6 90m 30000
7 200m 300000
8 400m ? (I'm guessing 3 million)

I had a look at the Brilliant Lances ships throughout the books, and found a few cases that violated these rules:

400 tonne Admiral Victrix with 5 hex fixed PEMS
2000 tonne Vlezhdatl with 5 hex fixed PEMS
16 tonne Wildbat fighter with 3 hex unspecified PEMS (I'm presuming it's fixed)
200 tonne Hiver Utility Vessel with 4 hex fixed PEMS
2750 tonne Maggart Stretched Clipper with 6 hex fixed PEMS
0.5 tonne TL12 semi-independent missile with 1 hex unspecified PEMS (I'm presuming it's fixed)
0.5 tonne TL14 semi-independent missile with 3 hex unspecified PEMS (I'm presuming it's fixed)

Barring the missiles (whose length I'm not sure of) any of these ships would qualify for the diameter if its *actual* length was used. Also, barring the missiles and Vlezhatl, the problem cases are in later volumes (Reform Coalition Equipment Guide).

This made me wonder if the *unmodified by configuration* remark should be removed. However, this would make some earlier ship designs a bit incongruous, for example (assuming warships want as long a Passive EMS range as possible if fixing their array):

400 tonne (48.5m) Gazelle or Fiery Close Escorts should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding).
200 tonne (51m) Lord Baltimore Yacht should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding)
400 tonne (61m) Shukugan SDB should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (instead of 4 hex).
400 tonne (55m) Ueknou Corsair should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (instead of 4 hex).
150 tonne (46.5m) Chatl Leader Scout should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding)
400 tonne (66m) Zhdits Destroyer Escort should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding)
2000 tonne (90m) Vlezhdatl Strike Cruiser should probably have a 6 hex fixed PEMS (rather than 5 hex)
2080 tonne (144m) Aurora Clipper should probably have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than 4 hex)
500 tonne (75m) Covenanter Clipper could have a 5 hex fixed PEMS (rather than folding). Although here, I'd argue it would have the folding PEMS from the Scout part.
20 tonne (20m) Armed Gig could have a 4 hex fixed PEMS (instead of 2 hex).
15 tonne (15m) Rampart Fighter could have a 3 hex fixed PEMS (instead of 2 hex).

Where do other people stand on this?

On the one hand, there seem to be more snafus in my second list than the first (if one doesn't count all the capital ships in Battle Rider with 8 hex fixed arrays, and who look a bit questionable even if they have elongated configurations).

I have only looked at TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 and TNE Brilliant Lances Technical Booklet. The Brilliant Lances designs all appear to conform with the rule stating that if antenna diameter is greater that the Hull Size Table L column the array must be a folding array. Personally, I would suggest corrections be made to the hulls that used fixed arrays when the design rules indicate they are folding arrays. Unless of course there is a note that allows the to have fixed arrays in the source document.

On the other hand, passive EMS seem a bit dubious in combat at the moment (short ranges, unless they're folding, in which case they preclude evasion and make the ship easier to detect by active sensors), so they could probably use a little love. Giving Close Escorts and the Destroyer Escort fixed passive arrays would enable them to be a bit sneaky in combat (evade and use passive EMS for detection).

My understanding of the TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 rules on page 50 is that folding arrays can not be used when retracted and allows atmospheric entry, docking, etc. Fixed arrays as far as I can tell does not allow a vessel to enter an atmosphere. Neither the fixed or folding array hinders maneuvering in space. Of course I am more than a bit weak on combat resolution so I'm probably out to lunch here.

 

[Tupper]

The only "errors" in Brilliant Lances are the missiles (who could be explained as having folding arrays) and the strike cruiser, who should presumably have a 4 hex fixed array. Then the other (newer) designs would be reduced (Wildbat to 2, Admiral Victrix to 4, Maggart to 5, Hiver Utility Vehicle to 3).

My interpretation of streamlining implications would be that one could not manoeuvre in atmosphere with a folding array deployed, but a fixed array (presumably some antennae directly on the hull of the ship rather than mounted on long struts) would have no such problem. They don't need long struts because the ship is big enough to set them wide apart if on opposite sides.

The combat implications are in the Mark 1 Mod I brilliant lances on page 12, where it notes that the folding array is fragile, and therefore cannot be deployed when evading.

Most warships worth their salt have reasonable G ratings, to facilitate evasion (probably the best way, along with a jammer, to avoid being detected by active sensors). Hence a sensor that can't be used while evading isn't terribly useful except prior to a battle, on picket duty.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning (PDT) Tupper,

The only "errors" in Brilliant Lances are the missiles (who could be explained as having folding arrays) and the strike cruiser, who should presumably have a 4 hex fixed array. Then the other (newer) designs would be reduced (Wildbat to 2, Admiral Victrix to 4, Maggart to 5, Hiver Utility Vehicle to 3).

Thank you for confirming that my results of Brilliant Lance's Technical Booklet hulls relating to HRT and PEMS passive sensor arrays being folding or fixed is on the right track.

At the moment the only TNE related books I can easily access are the Core Rulebook, Brilliant Lances, Players Forms, and FF&S so my reply on the missiles is based on TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 Book III Chapter 9 Munitions and Book III Chapter 10 Launchers. Book III Chapter 10 page 151 covers space missile launchers and indicates that they require a 300,000 km laser communicator. Launchers usually use the hull mounted sensors to obtain target locks and then hand control of the missiles to MFDs. However, the launchers can also have there own sensors and MFDs. The missiles once launched uses their onboard guidance systems to track and attack targets.

My guess is that the TL-12 and TL-14 0.5 tonne semi-independent missiles reference a PEMS array is for the launcher.

My interpretation of streamlining implications would be that one could not manoeuvre in atmosphere with a folding array deployed, but a fixed array (presumably some antennae directly on the hull of the ship rather than mounted on long struts) would have no such problem. They don't need long struts because the ship is big enough to set them wide apart if on opposite sides.

Oops, you are right and I got confused as usual when trying to type, edit, and think of what I'm trying to say at the sametime. Communicators, active sensors, densitometers, and neural activity sensors use only, if I understand TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0, fixed antennas.

The combat implications are in the Mark 1 Mod I brilliant lances on page 12, where it notes that the folding array is fragile, and therefore cannot be deployed when evading.

Most warships worth their salt have reasonable G ratings, to facilitate evasion (probably the best way, along with a jammer, to avoid being detected by active sensors). Hence a sensor that can't be used while evading isn't terribly useful except prior to a battle, on picket duty.

I was not able to find the note on TNE FF&S Brilliant Lances Rules of Play page 12 about folding arrays being fragile when maneuvering in space. In the Folding Sensors paragraphs the information I get is that extended folding arrays can get locks on targets while increasing the chances of being detected by active sensors. When folding arrays are retracted they can not attempt gaining a target lock or increase detection by active sensors.

I also read through Target Maneuver and Target Evasion on page 13 and I still can not find any mention of a folding array being fragile when maneuvering in space.

I have also checked the Brilliant Lances Additions, Clarifications, and Corrections August 9, 1993 0303/C3 page 1 from the boxed set which does not provide any information about folding arrays being fragile.

Of course that only means I can not find the reference about folding arrays being fragile since the research is for my benefit.

 

[Tupper]

I think a missile turret consists of a launcher, a tight beam Active EMS, and a laser communicator (10 hex). I think the sensor *is* on the missile, that being the appeal of a semi independent missile: being able to attack ships a long way from the launching ship.

I was going to refer you to the errata for the fragile passive EMS, but I don't think it's in there... It is in the Mark 1 Mod 1 version of brilliant lances, though!

I was thinking to start correcting some of the ships, particularly the hit charts, which would change since the surface areas of the EMS would change. However, I couldn't verify many of the existing numbers. A bit disturbing on the whole...

I think I will make a wee spreadsheet to build ships. Then I should be able to double check the rest of the numbers (and design new ships, I guess).

 

[snrdg082102]

I think a missile turret consists of a launcher, a tight beam Active EMS, and a laser communicator (10 hex). I think the sensor *is* on the missile, that being the appeal of a semi independent missile: being able to attack ships a long way from the launching ship.

Yep, I was out to lunch once again since the Missiles Table on Brilliant Lances Technical Booklet page 10 (1993 and Mk I Mod 0 Feb 1994) and TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 Appendix 1 page 153 show two of them using PEMS.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to match the Semi-Independent guidance system with the Guidance system described on TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 pages 144 through 145. Based on the description of PEMS arrays TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 page 52 and the launchers on page 149 modified by page 151 my guess is a semi-independent guidance adds a homing guidance system to the Command Guidance system which is why the 300,000 km/10 hexes laser communicator is part of the space missile launcher. Of course the guidance package may use the smart warhead option in place of or together with the homing package.

I was going to refer you to the errata for the fragile passive EMS, but I don't think it's in there... It is in the Mark 1 Mod 1 version of brilliant lances, though!

Neither v0.02 or 0.03 of the Consolidated TNE Errata mention the fragile folding array detailed in Brilliant Lances Rules of Play Booklet Mk I Mod 0. The Brilliant Lances Additions, Clarifications, and Corrections August 9, 1993 document 0303/C3 does not include the notation about fragile folding arrays either.

I was thinking to start correcting some of the ships, particularly the hit charts, which would change since the surface areas of the EMS would change. However, I couldn't verify many of the existing numbers. A bit disturbing on the whole...

I think I will make a wee spreadsheet to build ships. Then I should be able to double check the rest of the numbers (and design new ships, I guess).

I created a working draft spreadsheet to design sensors for both TNE and T4 QSDS. The T4 QSDS components, per Guy Garnett from discussions on TML at http://simplelists.com by way of http://archives.simplelists.com/subscribe/tml.

Using the spreadsheet I appear to duplicate the information shown for the sensors on the Starship Data Profiles on Brilliant Lances Technical Booklet 0303/R2 1993 pages 19 through 48 and Mk I Mod 0 since none of the sensor data appears to have changed. If you would like a copy please contact me off the forum with an email address to send the file to. Note that by working copy I mean bare bones using the Excel worksheet basic features.

I did another check using Brilliant Lances Mk I Mod 0 Technical Booklet and found a small glitch which was not caught earlier, so thank you for pushing me to do another pass.

 

[Tupper]

Hi Tom,

I've just spent an interesting evening (last night) brushing up my VBA, and I think I've resuscitated the old Antti TNE/T4 spreadsheet. So I now think I'm in a position to proceed with checking my (calculator) check of the ships. This check will be a bit more thorough, since I can recalculate everything for the ships.

I'd be very interested to see your calculations, if you wouldn't mind sharing them.
Similarly, I'll be happy to share mine, as I go along.

My hunch is that the original designs were done by a bunch of roosters armed with calculators, and this came with the attendant difficulties of a few mis-punched numbers and mis-interpreted rules! So hopefully doing a thorough sweep with a spreadsheet should clean up the snafus.

With respect to the missiles, I believe you are correct about the laser. You can use a semi-independent missile as a controlled missile. It can be handed off sensor locks (which may give it a head start using its own sensors) and reciprocally, it can hand back sensor locks. In that regard, it's a bit like a drone with a smaller engine, and a payload.

Cheers

Tupper

 

[Tupper]

By the by, if Tom or anyone else is curious, I posted the updated Antti spreadsheet on the Files section of the forum.

 

[snrdg082102]

Early Evening (PDT) Tupper,

Hi Tom,

I've just spent an interesting evening (last night) brushing up my VBA, and I think I've resuscitated the old Antti TNE/T4 spreadsheet. So I now think I'm in a position to proceed with checking my (calculator) check of the ships. This check will be a bit more thorough, since I can recalculate everything for the ships.

I have a copy of the original and downloaded your updated version. I received a message about a problem with encrypting the file during the extraction process. Hopefully, I have not broken the file.

I'd be very interested to see your calculations, if you wouldn't mind sharing them.
Similarly, I'll be happy to share mine, as I go along.

Unfortunately, I had a very bad experience when I shared a spreadsheet which has resulted in keeping my, as I was informed, lousy work off the site. Of course the site was not COTI, but I don't want a repeat and cluttering up the server with redundant files for designing equipment. If you would like a copy please send me an address I can email the file to you.

I forgot to mention that my TNE and T4 QSDS sensor spreadsheets provide the specifications for both fixed and folding arrays. From those calculations I feel the a folding array is probably as capable of handling standard and evasion maneuvers as a fixed array.

My hunch is that the original designs were done by a bunch of roosters armed with calculators, and this came with the attendant difficulties of a few mis-punched numbers and mis-interpreted rules! So hopefully doing a thorough sweep with a spreadsheet should clean up the snafus.

My take is that the original designs were done using draft copies of TNE FF&S and that the testers were using different drafts. Unfortunately, time constraints and continued feedback from gear heads the updates to the designs couldn't keep up.

With respect to the missiles, I believe you are correct about the laser. You can use a semi-independent missile as a controlled missile. It can be handed off sensor locks (which may give it a head start using its own sensors) and reciprocally, it can hand back sensor locks. In that regard, it's a bit like a drone with a smaller engine, and a payload.

Cheers

Tupper

Thank you for the nod on my rambling of what components make up a semi-independent guidance system with the laser communicator could be used to control the missile.

If every design that is SL or AF has a fixed passive sensor antenna how would they be able to enter an atmosphere without destroying the antenna?

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again Tupper,

By the by, if Tom or anyone else is curious, I posted the updated Antti spreadsheet on the Files section of the forum.

I'm generally curious about design systems and as I said earlier I've downloaded the file. At first glance the spreadsheet looks okay.

 

[Tupper]

SL and AF fixed arrays.

To the question as to how SL and AF work with fixed arrays, I think the trick is that they don't have to protrude much (if at all) from the hull. If the ship is big enough, something *built into* the hull on opposite sides is sufficiently far apart to enable resolution at the desired range. Hence the ship remains streamlined.

With a folding array, everything's fine in an atmosphere as long as it stays folded. Deploy it and goodbye streamlining.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Tupper,

To the question as to how SL and AF work with fixed arrays, I think the trick is that they don't have to protrude much (if at all) from the hull. If the ship is big enough, something *built into* the hull on opposite sides is sufficiently far apart to enable resolution at the desired range. Hence the ship remains streamlined.

From the details on TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 page 50 the RADIO Communicators, LASER Communicators, Maser Communicators, Meson Communicators, RADAR, LADAR, AEMS, Densitometer, and Neural Activity Sensor use a synthetic aperture array that fit with your description above in my opinion. All nine require surface area without any mention of their antennas having a diameter requirement so I agree with you.

With a folding array, everything's fine in an atmosphere as long as it stays folded. Deploy it and goodbye streamlining.

The HRT and PEMS sensors are the only systems with antennas that are either fixed or folding since they have a diameter, per page 52, and in my opinion to be unitary sensor dishes, per page 50. Per the Starship Data Profile a TL-15 Scout/Courier with a streamlined hull mounts a 150,000 km PEMS sensor with a 40 meter diameter antenna dish. At 35 meters long and per CT 7 meters in height a fixed 40 meter antenna the scout is no longer streamlined.

To me making a folding antenna more fragile does not make any kind of sense when maneuvering in space when a fixed antenna has less mass than a folding one.