Karagin
03/19/02 03:51 PM
63.173.170.89
|
Has anyone given thought to using something similar to CAV's ECM rolls when trying to get a target lock? Say if a mech as an ECM unit on it then attacking mechs would suffer a +1 to the hit roll or something like that?
Any idea on this or a better way to apply this? I am interested in this a lot since I feel as written the ECM and the other electronic systems are very limited and to use them you need to be for the most part using the optionial level 2 rules or rules out of Max Tech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
novakitty
03/19/02 05:29 PM
192.195.234.26
|
The tactical handbook has rules for using different types of sensors (instead of just visual magnification) starting on page 45, when using electromagnetic sensors (basically radar) ECM adds a 4 point penalty. This rule has only come into play that I have seen when visual becomes useless, and even then, most players just take the impossible shot with any energy weapons they have instead of switching to different sensors.
I hope some of my rant helps.
meow
|
Karagin
03/19/02 05:31 PM
63.173.170.50
|
It's a start, but a +4 is a hell of a penalty to pay...thanks for reminding of those older rules...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
novakitty
03/19/02 05:37 PM
192.195.234.26
|
You also got a -1 per scale of mech above light (-1 for medium, -2 heavy, -3 assault), a -1 if the target fired any weapons last turn, and a -2 if using a standard active probe, so the penalty is usually not as extreme as it first appears.
meow
|
novakitty
03/19/02 05:41 PM
192.195.234.26
|
Just because I have it here, I will enter the full chart to alleaviate any confusion on my wording.
Target effect / modifier
Vehicle / +1
Assault mech / -3
Heavy mech / -2
Medium mech / -1
Light mech / --
Engine hit (each) / -1
fired weapon in previous turn / -1
inside building / +2
running / +1
using active probe / -2
Equipped with ECM / +4
Power armored infantry / --
Unarmored infantry / +4
In the end, most penalties are not as bad as they first appear, except against ECM equipped infantry in a building.
meow
|
NathanKell
03/19/02 10:22 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Yes, but only for space {as it's my True Love (c)}.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Karagin
03/19/02 10:32 PM
63.173.170.223
|
A mech as Guardian or Angel ECM (or one of our home versions) and the system is in range of the attacker, then the attacker should have to add a +1 at the max range of the ECM if he is in the coverage area to his to hit roll, a +2 if he is in the medium range of the ECM and a +3 at short range.
This makes the ECM units very effective and allows them to actually take part in the game not be only there IF one side actually uses the C3 system etc…plus this really hurts the munchkin player and the Targ/Pulse monsters.
So what do you guys think?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/19/02 10:35 PM
63.173.170.223
|
I was thinking that it would apply across the board so to speak, effecting all units, ships, mechs etc...at least that what sounded good while I was out running...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
novakitty
03/19/02 10:48 PM
192.195.234.26
|
The ECMs create a range of electromagnetig interference (at least that is how i understand the process) that messes up any attempts to use radar-like sensors on anything past the sphere of interference. I do not know how to apply that perception to your suggestion. See if you can use it.
meow
|
Karagin
01/17/07 12:21 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Bouncing this to go with the other ECM topics.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
02/02/07 09:54 PM
70.123.166.36
|
I was hoping to see if others got the chance to use it...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|