Karagin
09/26/02 12:47 PM
63.173.170.87
|
Okay I am looking for ideas from you folks on how to build a destroyer that main role is ECM and ECCM work.
One area I am having trouble with is how many ECM units should be put on the vessel as well as how many Beagle Probes.
So fire away with the ideas.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
09/26/02 01:09 PM
4.35.174.250
|
...is clearly inapplicable to Battlespace/Aerotech Warships.
Um. This seems like kind of an AT2 question. Why not post it in that board?
Unless you meant surface warships? In which case, that's more what the board game or design forums would be for.
I was working on rules for ECM and sensor packages in AT2 before I became distracted with Real Life.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
09/26/02 01:48 PM
63.173.170.87
|
Thank you for the comments, but I feel that this the correct board to talk about ideas and such...seeing how you don't feel that ECM applies to warships I will place your idea in the no coloum.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
09/26/02 02:13 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Thank you for the comments, but I feel that this the correct board to talk about ideas and such...<<<
ALL of the boards are for talking about ideas and such. It's the matter of the TYPE of idea that determines where it should go, neh?
>>>seeing how you don't feel that ECM applies to warships I will place your idea in the no coloum. <<<
I didn't say that. I just said than the Battletech ECM suites are too small, light, and short-range to have any meaningful effect in AT2. What you need is Warship ECM rules.
-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.
:)
|
Cray
09/26/02 02:31 PM
64.83.29.242
|
I'm going to side with Bob: existing Guardians/Angels don't cut it. You'd need warship-specific ECM suites.
Which I'll sleep on and maybe have some thoughts on in the morning.
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.
|
Karagin
09/26/02 03:49 PM
63.173.170.169
|
There is no sides here...I am asking for ideas on how one would go about build a warship that would fill the role, NOT whether or not it can or can not be done.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
09/26/02 03:52 PM
63.173.170.169
|
I picked this board so live with or don't take part in the topic...simple and easy.
Seeing HOW we don't have warship size ECM, we must work with what we have...so...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
09/26/02 06:34 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>> picked this board so live with or don't take part in the topic...simple and easy.<<<
Perhaps you should make a better selection next time?
>>>Seeing HOW we don't have warship size ECM, we must work with what we have...so... <<<
Quite right. In fact, we don't have ANY ECM AT ALL (ECM is not a legal addition to AT2 craft and, furthermore, has no game effects.) Seems like time to design some, doesn't it?
-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
09/26/02 06:36 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>I am asking for ideas on how one would go about build a warship that would fill the role<<<
And, as always, getting combative when you get an answer that doesn't quite suit your fancy.
The ECM ship idea won't work with the existing ECM systems (as they don't, after all, actually exist.)
Thus, in order to make an EW ship, first you have to create EW Gear. Mind if we help?
-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.
:)
|
Cray
09/26/02 07:01 PM
12.91.119.246
|
>I am asking for ideas on how one would go about build a warship that would fill the role, NOT whether or not it can or can not be done.
I'm saying the same. You're on a misinterpretation streak again - must be Bob's involvement in the thread. 
When I have some time to sketch out some warship-grade ECMs, i.e., the answer to "how you'd build a warship to fill that role," I'll post my idea and the answer you're after.
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.
|
masdog5
09/27/02 06:17 PM
66.72.233.90
|
I agree with Bob and Cray, and think that there should be some rules related to ECM's in aerotech, but for fighters, not warships.
My question is what would be the point of having an ECM warship? For ships of their mass, the large amount of electronic noise that they generate to hide themselves would easily be detected by any type of passive detection, and the only point to including ECM modules in teh design would be to distract any missile barrages that are sent its way.
If you want to develop some type of stealth warship, creating a variant on the capellan stealth armor for aerotech would be the way to go.
If I were the commander of a naval force that went up against a force that included some ECM destroyers, they would be the first targets when I send my waves of fighters in.
Edited by masdog5 (09/27/02 06:18 PM)
|
Cray
09/27/02 07:20 PM
12.91.121.79
|
In reply to:
For ships of their mass, the large amount of electronic noise that they generate to hide themselves would easily be detected by any type of passive detection, and the only point to including ECM modules in teh design would be to distract any missile barrages that are sent its way.
Oh, I disagree.
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.
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.
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.
Edited by Cray (09/27/02 07:23 PM)
|
Greyslayer
09/27/02 07:34 PM
216.14.192.226
|
', as do RL stealth fights. The ship might not become invisible, but it might be able to convince its hunters that it's invisible.'
Just like the Aussie 'over the horizon' radar detects the incoming steath fighter as a fast moving flock of seagulls (heaven forbid if seagulls do mach 2 though)
Greyslayer
|
masdog5
09/27/02 07:55 PM
66.72.233.90
|
Karagin stated:
One area I am having trouble with is how many ECM units should be put on the vessel as well as how many Beagle Probes.
THis is where I questioned hte Idea of an ECM ship. ECM units in battletech, as far as I can tell, are of the active variety. It seems to me that he is designing a ship that is basically going to be a jump-capable radar jamming ship.
Although I agree that all the items you listed are considered ECM, lets remember that some are passive forms and some are active forms. The passive ones, like null-signature and stealth armor, would be great for a stealth warship but would defeat the purpose of a white noise ship.
I dont know if anyone has brought this up on another post, but what about EW weapons? Has anyone created rules for missiles that track sensor emissions like the modern HARMs? Ion Cannons (of the Star Wars variety, not the Command and Conquer ones) would be another good weapon for disrupting sensor (ok, all) systems aboard a warship.
|
Cray
09/27/02 09:12 PM
12.91.126.12
|
>ECM units in battletech, as far as I can tell, are of the active variety
I disagree. Guardian ECM suites keep mechs hidden from normal passive sensors short of BAPs.
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.
|
Cray
09/28/02 01:12 PM
12.91.139.190
|
Alright, draft 1:
ECM and ECCM on spacecraft face several issues.
First, space is big. Really big. Thus trying to protect a volume of space with ECM is fairly difficult.
Second, spaceships frequently spew hot gases from their rears. Unlike aircraft (which have a lot of surrounding cold gas to mix and dilute their hot exhaust) and unlike aircraft again (which only have an exhaust of a 1000-2000C), BT spacecraft are in a really tough bind. They have multi-million degree exhaust gases and nothing to (practically speaking) cool it with.
However, this does not mean ECM on spacecraft is useless.
Where should we start? How about tonnage?
The typical IS Guardian ECM suite represents between 7.5% and 1.5% of a mech's mass. It encompasses a significant volume compared to a mech, but it wouldn't even cover some dropships, let alone a warship or jumpship. Spacecraft also have that pesky exhaust issue. So, for sake of argument, let's say the base ECM suite size of a spacecraft over 100 tons is 1% of the vessel's mass; fighters can use Guardian ECM suites. (The 1% of the ship's mass is not necessarily one big ECM gizmo in the heart of the ship, but rather a load of emitters, spiffy stealth materials, and other assorted ECM thingies all around the ship.)
What does this get us?
Noting problem 1 (space is big), let's say this only protects the ship that mounts the ECM suite. You get the usual ECM benefits that work with "radius 0": defeat Artemis, Narc, etc. ECM also helps hide ground units, so let's say the detection range is reduced to 20% normal (see Explorer Corps for detection ranges.) If the vessel is braking, detection range is 50% normal. If the vessel is coasting, detection range is 5% normal. The exhaust is carefully collimated so no stray hot hydrogen ions tickle hostile sensors and rocket nozzles are carefully hidden so their white glow is shielded from hostile telescopes. Radars use low intercept probability coding to appear as background noise and external EM emitters are carefully controlled to emit minimal noise. Additional deceptive electronic sensors feedback false signals to hostile scanners and sometimes even hack into hostile ships' sensor data streams to feed in false information to passive sensors.
So, for 1% of a ship's mass, you protect the ship with ECM and that ship alone.
But you want ECM to protect a whole fleet, dontcha?
Alright, to provide ECM/ECCM to the hex the ship is in, the much larger ECM suite is 2% of the ship's mass, to a minimum of 2,000 tons. Fighters and small craft cannot mount ECM adequate to cloak a hex. This means ECM can now perform fully like ground ECM: block line of sight for C3 systems, jam C3 systems of hostile units in the same hex, etc.
But you want more, yes? You don't want to stack a dozen 1km-long warships in the same 18km hex just to enjoy the protection of the ECM suite, do you?
Let's accept the 2D nature of AT2 games and say that you can purchase additional ECM protected hexes at the rate of 1 hex per 2000 tons. You must buy protection for an entire "ring" of hexes at a time: if you're buying protection for 1 hex beyond the first, you must buy it for the entire 1 hex radius around it, i.e., another 12,000 tons worth. A 2-hex radius of ECM protection demands a total of 36,000 tons of equipment, plus 2% of the mounting ship's mass or 2000 tons, whichever is more.
So, howzzat?
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.
|
Karagin
09/28/02 03:48 PM
63.173.170.25
|
About what I had in mind more or less...your ideas do keep things simple and so what with in the scope of the game as far as ECM goes and you do trade off the advantages with some disadvantages which is a good balance.
Having several ships is not a bad idea, one that would make fleet operations some thing that would need to be paid attention to and mastered.
The 1 and 2% mass ideas are good ones and I think we should work on that area and try to take it to the logical step forward.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
FrozenFire
09/28/02 05:24 PM
68.20.16.191
|
cool
|
Greyslayer
09/28/02 08:25 PM
63.12.145.202
|
The main problem that these units would still run into is visual sensors such as silhouette or 'profiling' (well its quite often how we detect comets and asteriods now). No amount of throwing ECM gear on a unit will disturb the ability to detect a shadow against a background of essentially stable stars.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
09/28/02 11:36 PM
12.91.150.7
|
>The main problem that these units would still run into is visual sensors such as silhouette or 'profiling' (well its quite often how we detect comets and asteriods now).
BT does have various optical cloaking methods, ranging from personal body suits to the Null Signature System. Those work in full sunlight, so I'm sure a ship can mimic the light of stars behind it.
Optical detection probably explains the revised detection ranges I suggested for ECM-equipped vessels.
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
09/30/02 09:46 AM
4.17.223.29
|
"This means ECM can now perform fully like ground ECM: block line of sight for C3 systems, jam C3 systems of hostile units in the same hex, etc."
Aside from Artemis, I can't think of a system in BattleTech that has a counterpart in AeroTech 2 that is affected by ECM. The C3 systems on DropShip-class and larger craft is not the same one used on ground vehicles. Fleet combat coordination seems to be limited to sharing positional information, though even that is insufficient to replicate the system used by ground-based craft.
So aside from disrupting Artemis systems, which really can be delt with easier with Point Defense systems, what game effect would having ECM bring?
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
09/30/02 10:36 AM
63.173.170.108
|
C3 systems aren't the same? Okay Peter can you give us the page in the AT2 rules that backs that up? First time I have heard anyone say the C3 system that is used in the game is different on Dropships...so please could you point out in the rules where it says this.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
09/30/02 01:30 PM
64.83.29.242
|
>So aside from disrupting Artemis systems, which really can be delt with easier with Point Defense systems, what game effect would having ECM bring?
Read my Draft 1 again. Detection ranges drop. This is non-trivial for sneaky approaches to a planet and even slipping by screens of defenders.
Also, the few thousand tons (up to 2500 for mega-battleships) of ECM that takes the edge off Artemis/Narc missiles is 2500 tons (or less) that doesn't require fire control tonnage.
And I just had a spiffy idea about ECM and point defense.
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.
|
Cray
09/30/02 01:35 PM
64.83.29.242
|
As written, warship ECM *IS* a bit limited in direct battlefield bonuses. So, proposals:
1) Warships protected by ECM double the effectiveness of their point defense. Their ECCM defeats the penaids of capital missiles and just plain confuses normal missiles.
2) When attacking a ship protected by ECM, attackers have a +1 to-hit the protected ship (unless they have ECCM). If an attacker is in the radius of effect of hostile units, they have +2 to attack any target in or out of the ECM bubble.
3) When a target is in the radius of hostile ECM, all attacks against the target are at -1. The target's sensors are at least somewhat snowed out so it cannot evade as effectively. Unless, of course, it has ECCM.
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.
Edited by Cray (09/30/02 01:40 PM)
|
Karagin
09/30/02 01:47 PM
63.173.170.165
|
I like it. Fits nicely with in the rules and doesn't slow the game down at all. I will add this to my notes and look forward to seeing what else you come up with.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
09/30/02 03:39 PM
4.35.174.250
|
but let me reiterate his point:
THE C3 SYSTEM IS NOT USABLE IN AT2.
That's a firm rule straight out of AT2.
Just like with the ECM.
If you want C3 systems for your ECM to jam, I'm afraid we'll have to make those, too.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
09/30/02 03:47 PM
63.173.170.200
|
Once again...show me the page number this is on in the AT2 rule book.
I have looked through the book and don't see anything about C3 NOT working in AT2.
So my friend how about giving us the page number or drop the attitude that you seem to have about not wanting this in the game or what ever you problem is with this whole topic.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
09/30/02 04:24 PM
4.35.174.250
|
it's easier if you RTFM yourself, instead of making me do it for you.
I can't find my AT2 at the moment, but somewhere in there it mentions that anything not listed on the table is not available for AT2 construction. C3 systems are not on that table, nor does it make sense for them to be. Battletech C3 systems are designed to coordinate fire between ground forces, not between giant spacecraft separated by multiple kilometers of space.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
09/30/02 06:08 PM
63.173.170.102
|
I already looked and I didn't find ANYTHING that supports your claim...but hey why let that stop you from trying to ruin a thread or topic you don't support.
Thank you for your input, but please don't add any more since none of it is helpful or partains to the topic.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
09/30/02 07:23 PM
4.17.223.29
|
"Read my Draft 1 again. Detection ranges drop. This is non-trivial for sneaky approaches to a planet and even slipping by screens of defenders."
I saw that. I don't buy the reduction rates. I'm also going two-for-one on replies here, so I'll be hitting both of your posts Mike.
"ECM also helps hide ground units, so let's say the detection range is reduced to 20% normal (see Explorer Corps for detection ranges.)"
Are you talking about the same section that states that although a scanning unit will not know what is in the area of jamming, it will know that it is being jammed?
"If the vessel is braking, detection range is 50% normal."
This one really has me scratching my head. Aside from some handwavium, or a good dose of HEROChip logic, how would you hide the IR signature of "multi-million degree exhaust gases" that are pointed towards your target?
"If the vessel is coasting, detection range is 5% normal."
This one is easier to go with, essentially the craft is "running silent".
"Radars use low intercept probability coding to appear as background noise"
I would assume that this is a function of signal strength more than anything else. If that is the case, I would think using a system like that would be more of a hazard to the emitting craft, as any returned signals would most likely be drowned out by the background radiation.
One other thing. This application is obviously intended for stealthy approaches to a target. How do you deal with the loudest indicator of approaching craft-the jump wave?
"Also, the few thousand tons (up to 2500 for mega-battleships) of ECM that takes the edge off Artemis/Narc missiles is 2500 tons (or less) that doesn't require fire control tonnage."
Unfortunately, I don't have my rulebook with me (still at the office). As such, I don't have the exact wording for how PD systems work in AT2. Tonight, when I get home, I'll do a quick analysis of Point Defense systems versus the ECM system, against all the classes of missile systems (save MRMs), for a wide range of craft sizes and classes.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|