Cray
10/02/02 11:12 AM
64.83.29.242
|
>I'll conceed that braking will really be the only issue, as far as IR detection is concerned
Indeed. But the signature can still be muffled - cooled rocket nozzles, for example. It's not like they directly touch the exhaust plasma anyway.
Which leaves the tiny trickle of super-hot hydrogen to be spotted by gamma ray detectors (or radio, if aimed away from the detector? to account for BT spacecraft fuel efficiencies without relativity, the exhaust must be quite a bit faster than light, so there's some heavy red shift effects on any EM emitted by the hydrogen exhaust.)
Which not every vehicle is going to be able to detect. Dropships, IIRC, have better sensors than fighters, implying a range of sensors out there. With some attention to exhaust collimation or diffusion, you might be able to reduce detection ranges even when braking - a 50% reduction is not awful, given the thousands of km already involved.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 05:04 PM
4.17.223.29
|
Only problem is I find most people don't like it, actually. I try to keep in on my list of "Last Resorts".
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Rick Raisley
10/02/02 09:17 PM
66.20.155.58
|
Not to add more fuel to a raging fire, but since my name was mentioned, I thought I'd put the sum total of my knowledge of this area. Mostly, it's from emails from Chris Hartford and Randall concerning rules and how they apply to HMAero.
First, Bob made a point about any weapon or system not specifically mentioned should be excluded, and he has a point. Page 46 of AT2 mentions:
"Certain weapons and equipment included in the BattleTech Master Rules have been omitted from these tables because those weapons are not used on spacecraft or aircraft."
The tables mentioned here are the tables on pages 99-101 of AT2, listing all equipment. C3 and ECM are not on that list.
Then, to be more specific, I emailed Chris and Randall and received these answers to my questions:
===========================================
Rick: Can C3 networks by used by any aero craft?
Chris: No - IMHO, the distances are too great for them to be effective.
===========================================
Rick: Narc, ECM and targeting computers are not in the AT2, but existing designs of fighters use them all, so I assume they're legal. Can they be used on DropShips or large craft?
Chris: Actually, Narc is in AT2 - but while it can be fired by aerocraft, only ground units can get the benefit (p. 100). Targetting computers - definitely a yes (it appears in the attack mods table on p16) and am not sure why its not in the equipment lists. ECM is a slightly trickier proposition - there aren't any AT2-specific rules for it, and like C3 I think it's range would be too limited (and effectiveness degraded by "natural" ECM like solar flare). I would say, however, that a fighter might mount an ECM system to defend itself against ground systems when in atmosphere.
===========================================
Take that all for what it's worth. I'm fairly certain it's not worth this much bickering.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 09:37 PM
63.12.141.16
|
I think they would like it better than 'have a cookie approach' though 
Greyslayer .... hmmmmm cookies particularly those jumbo ones 
|
Rick Raisley
10/02/02 09:46 PM
66.20.155.58
|
Well, I at least /hope/ that this, or other things that other people do, don't me look bad. I make enough errors of my own, that I can handle that just fine. ;-)
I can't control what others do or say, and have no need nor desire to do so. I even joke about some really munchy designs that I had always hoped my programs would be used for good and not for evil, but it's just that, a joke. There are enough gray areas in the rules to keep most of us discussing all the time, and my thought about Karagin's original post was that he was suggesting that there /should/ be ECM for spacecraft, and was wanting to discuss with others what they thought and how it might be accomplished, not so much that he was arguing, from the beginning at least, that (standard) ECM /did/ exist for them.
Anyhow, that's his fight, and I won't get more involved in it. But neither do I feel especially bad that one of my playtesters has come up with a somewhat unpopular idea. The programs, and BattleTech in general, all get us thinking, not always inside the box. And I think that's good.
Anyhow, don't feel sorry for me. I'm a big guy. I can take it! ;-)
|
Bob_Richter
10/02/02 11:07 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>None of the ships in AT2 are illegal.<<<
Save those that, like the HCT-213B Hellcat II, have been ported from AT, which grants them:
1) 10 free points of nose armor
2) The use of illegal equipment, such as the Beagle Active Probe.
This fighter cannot be constructed in AT2. It is therefore not a valid or legal AT2 fighter design, whether HMA says it is or not.
>>>Better still why don't you drop the $$$ for it and then you will for your self... <<<
The answer for that should be fairly obvious. I'll let you puzzle it out on your own.
>>>So how about you stop saying that the program is not following the rules and wake up and understand that it is.
<<<
When it allows the mounting of illegal equipment, it is not following the rules. HMA (despite your suggestion to the contrary) is *NOT* the definitive reference on AT2 contruction rules. AT2(as revised by the errata sheet and clarified in the CBT FAQ) is.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/02/02 11:18 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>They left it far too open and because of this and the examples of fighters they have included that have equipment which is not discussed in the book then it must be legal to mount equipment on aerospace units <<<
Each of the fighters that mount ECM or Active Probes (none mount C3) is illegal in its own right.
NONE can be constructed with AT2 rules.
NOR are Active Probes or ECM legal for use on a craft constructed by AT2 rules.
If you really feel like it, you can design a craft by the old Aerotech rules that mounts one, and one supposes that would be legal once converted (thus grandfathering in all the illegal designs in the back of the book) But it has NEVER been legal to construct a non-fighter vessel with Active Probes or ECMs.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Acolyte
10/03/02 01:07 AM
142.179.27.248
|
Nope, I wouldn't allow someone the loophole of making a ship with the old rules and then converting it. I would allow any and all of the old ships. These are grandfathered in, as you put it, and are therefore legal. They will always be legal. It's just that you cannot make new ships this way.
Personnally, I think that this whole argument is rather silly. The GM decides what is and is not legal in a game. If you don't have a GM, then consences rules. With that in mind, as long as you aren't actually playing with Karigin, there should be no argument.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Acolyte
10/03/02 01:17 AM
142.179.27.248
|
BailingTech.  Heh. I love it!
And yes you got it right, I'm a dyed in the wool 3025 player, although I do know something of the Clans and later times. I just don't like them. Funny thing is, it's not the newtech or loopholes that bug me, it's the universe. I am also very much convinced that people should not limit themselves to the rules as presented. So, fine. According to the rules, you cannot mount this equipment. At least that's one interpretation. But you think it's a good idea. So, mount it, don't go by the book, you've got a brain, use it! Man, now I'm starting to sound like Tony Robbins.....
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Greyslayer
10/03/02 02:00 AM
216.14.192.226
|
'Funny thing is, it's not the newtech or loopholes that bug me, it's the universe.'
Well it is the loopholes and the universe that bugs me. That and being a mercenary player as well (the sheer illogic of players who claim they are mercs with expensive XL/Clan/Rare equipment in their roster which ends up having a cast of thousands in it as well). The 'insta-mech' just add water philosophy also annoyed me no end as well.
Anyway at this point unless they really design something like a Drone Carrying Frigate (like from Homeworld) I fail to see how effective ECM would be out in space (unless it got the resulting jump in distance that all items seemed to have gotten so that 195 meters would no longer be correct).
Greyslayer
|
Acolyte
10/03/02 03:56 AM
142.179.27.248
|
I hear you about the Merc thing, the "cast of thousands" comment aside, though. Infantry is very common, espicially with Mercs. With support crew and families added in, having more than a thousand people in a unit is not uncommon. As to the other, the players agree with my POV. When I run a game, the players get what's available. Hell, if they want a new 'Mech, the easiest way to get it is to take one down in such a way that it can be salvaged, which is difficult and reliant on luck. Vehicles make up a significant portion of any force and not a one will have a fusion reactor, let alone XL. That's not totally true......... they do run into some fusion powered vehicles. Buying one is rarely an option and when presented the players jump at the chance. Then they quite often strip the engine out for a 'Mech that needs one. It's generally considered a waste to put a fusion engine in anything but a 'Mech, AeroSpace Fighter, or larger craft.
It really bugs me to see XL's or XXL's or any such in vehicles. Such a waste.
Now, the drone carrier idea warents some looking into. I can see a wing of ASF's with ECM gear as part of a large battlegroup. They would deffinatly be an advantage, and far less vulnerable than a single target. Much more versitile, too. An ECM ship with a wing of ECM ASF's could be decisive in some circumstances.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Greyslayer
10/03/02 05:09 AM
216.14.192.226
|
'the "cast of thousands" comment aside, though'
Well this goes hand in hand with the expensive rare equipment/mechs. If you spend all your resources on one or two units then how on earth did these players get regiments in a short period of time? It all comes down to a ineffective GM.
Now what I truly mean by the ECM drone Carrier is the ships (little bigger than a lifeboat) are the drones with mounted ECMs controlled from the carrier (you take out the carrier you take out the effectiveness of the drones just like on the ground).
Greyslayer
|
Acolyte
10/03/02 04:34 PM
142.179.27.248
|
Ahh.... so you're talking about people with thousands of MechWarriors, ASF Pilots, Vehicle crew, ect. Full regiments of the most advanced equipment. That is an ineffective GM. Or simply one that has a different perspective on the universe than either of us.
Now, I knew what you meant by the drone carrier, but drones are not part of BattleTech. So, I changed the idea slightly and used existing units to accomplish the same task.
But, if you want make a drone carrier and drones, start a new thread and lets discus it!
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Karagin
07/27/06 10:46 AM
214.13.130.100
|
Let's see if this can get a second life...well maybe.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Gnome76
07/31/06 07:41 PM
70.189.75.214
|
I wonder if they didn't like the ideas just because they didn't think them through first? Or perhaps it's along the same lines as the "no aliens" pseudo-policy... as in this sort of thing gets used in all other popular sci-fi, so we won't.
Also... I am now craving cookies.
|
Karagin
08/01/06 03:41 PM
214.13.130.100
|
It's possible, but then again nukes get over used in other sci-fi both popular and not so popular...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah
12/04/06 01:51 PM
207.160.205.13
|
See the ECM Teleoperated Missile I designed.
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/138385/an/0/page/0#138385
Any rules I type should be considered unofficial unless stated otherwise by Precentor Martial Randall Bills and/or published Classic BattleTech products.
|
NewPharoah
12/08/06 05:08 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
ECM is not just screaming jammers. It's also deception and cloaking. ECM can fool passive sensors, too.
Warship-scale ECM may represent anything from simple all-channel white noise to Romulan cloaking technology. Both Stealth Armor and Null Signature Systems incorporate ECM to some extent, as do RL stealth fights. The ship might not become invisible, but it might be able to convince its hunters that it's invisible.
Note the Bugeye was reputed to be able to hack into the internal communications networks of other vessels. If the Bugeye could listen to the internal conversations of hostile crews, it could also muck with their sensor data streams. ECM of the highest form.
Cray, could you please explain in better detail as to how ECM does all that and how the Bug Eye can listen to personnel talk since space is a vaccum?
Quote:
Karagin, I swear I haven't forgotten this topic. I'm still thinking about appropriate weights, ranges, etc. in between half a dozen other projects.
How about proportionally basing such weights (in tons) & ranges (in meters) based on the Guardian ECM and Beagle Active Probe? And what do you think of my dark matter cloaking device rules?
Edited by NewPharoah (12/08/06 05:15 PM)
|
Karagin
12/08/06 05:33 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Glad to see some for interest in this topic...looking forward to more...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
12/11/06 09:40 AM
88.159.68.87
|
Personal talk, easy. Put a laser on the window/hull, then read the reflections, process them, and you will get the sound on the inside.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
NewPharoah_Max
12/13/06 01:08 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Windows on ships are not a good idea because of holes. Better to use cameras.
Greetings to you too.
|
Cray
12/14/06 12:07 AM
68.200.109.191
|
Quote:
Windows on ships are not a good idea because of holes. Better to use cameras.
Windows have nothing to do with Toonje's comment on reading conversations with lasers.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NewPharoah_Max
12/15/06 06:04 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I know. I was to it's better to not take chances with windows in combat for oxygen reasons.
Greetings to you too.
|
Toontje
12/15/06 06:51 PM
84.31.236.100
|
Hmm, I was refering to vibrations caused by communications inside. Bit like holding a glass to a wall, using light instead of matter.
Bugeye could as well have been evesdropping on the EM emmisions of the intercom. Both are viable ways.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
NewPharoah_Max
12/16/06 12:13 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Yeah, I know what you meant.
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
12/23/06 11:48 PM
70.123.166.36
|
True and that is a good point, now I wonder if there is away to jam that?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
01/01/07 07:50 PM
131.155.212.4
|
white noise springs to mind.. but vibrations by speak will only drown if countered in the human ear spectrum.. So if you make it unintelligable, people inside will be deafened and unintelligabe to all nearby as well.
And encrypting the intercom EM radiations or so.. well, good encryption will cost in some way, so to install a lot of costing equipment for the off chance that a bugeye will be listening is not likely. Also, the speakers cannot be encrypted, and the magnet therein will be sending out EM as well.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
01/01/07 08:06 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Good points. I am not sure why the idea of ECM warships or spyships got dropped, but it's one of the many areas that could have a lot interesting story plots and such around it.
Plus it would be something any House military would love to have.
Your points are good ones and ones that would be justified in face of ECM warships etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|