Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
ECM Warships
#40029 - 09/26/02 09:47 AM (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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Battletech ECM gear...
#40032 - 09/26/02 10:09 AM (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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Battletech ECM gear...
#40037 - 09/26/02 10:48 AM (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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Re: Battletech ECM gear...
#40040 - 09/26/02 11:13 AM (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
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40043 - 09/26/02 11:31 AM (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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40050 - 09/26/02 12:49 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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Battletech ECM gear...
#40052 - 09/26/02 12:52 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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Re: Battletech ECM gear...
#40067 - 09/26/02 03:34 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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40068 - 09/26/02 03:36 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
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40072 - 09/26/02 04:01 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
Sergeant
Reged: 08/13/02
Posts: 189
|
Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
#40147 - 09/27/02 03:17 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 03:18 PM)
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
#40155 - 09/27/02 04:20 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 04:23 PM)
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
#40156 - 09/27/02 04:34 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
Sergeant
Reged: 08/13/02
Posts: 189
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
#40161 - 09/27/02 04:55 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
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
#40164 - 09/27/02 06:12 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
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Draft 1
#40211 - 09/28/02 10:12 AM (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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Draft 1
#40218 - 09/28/02 12:48 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
Newbie
Reged: 09/27/02
Posts: 8
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40226 - 09/28/02 02:24 PM (68.20.16.191)
|
|
|
cool
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: Draft 1
#40230 - 09/28/02 05:25 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
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: Draft 1
#40238 - 09/28/02 08:36 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
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: Draft 1
#40302 - 09/30/02 06:46 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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Draft 1
#40309 - 09/30/02 07:36 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
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: Draft 1
#40319 - 09/30/02 10:30 AM (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
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Draft 1 Addendum
#40321 - 09/30/02 10:35 AM (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 10:40 AM)
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Draft 1 Addendum
#40322 - 09/30/02 10:47 AM (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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
I'm not sure why Peter put it that way,
#40336 - 09/30/02 12:39 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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: I'm not sure why Peter put it that way,
#40339 - 09/30/02 12:47 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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
You know,
#40343 - 09/30/02 01:24 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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Actually if you would read...
#40359 - 09/30/02 03:08 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
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: Draft 1
#40362 - 09/30/02 04:23 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.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
I really feel sorry for Rick.
#40363 - 09/30/02 04:35 PM (4.17.223.29)
|
|
|
Karagin, your apparent refusal to even read the books in question not only makes yourself look foolish, but now you're making Rick Raisley look bad. That is your name I see in the credits. How embarassing it must be to find out that one of his playtesters doesn't even have a clue as to how the game even works.
I'll cite you, page and verse, the parts in AT2 which apply to Bob's statement about the C3 Master/Slave and C3i systems not being used in AT2 when I get home (and get to my book).
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Actually the only person...
#40366 - 09/30/02 04:56 PM (63.173.170.189)
|
|
|
Actually Peter, I do understand know how AT2 works...but seeing how you are doing nothing but attacking me over this I find it sad that FanPro and WK even let you moderate their message boards, given how you seem to think you know more then anyone else out there.
Please post the page it's on I would love to see it since after LOOKING THROUGH the book I was not able to find it. But I am sure you will come up with something or if not you will try and flame the topic to death.
And if you missed the whole point of thread, it was to get ideas, but far be it from me to point how fast you are on non-CBT sites to try and smash those kinds of threads...
So have a nice day.
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
What the???
#40382 - 09/30/02 09:28 PM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
What is it with you CBTers going after Rick? It must be his helpful unbiased way of looking at things. If a playtester knew everything written would you seriously need more than one? You use a large number of playtesters to get a more polished result. Of course after all the errors (typos and so on) in the Civil War book you are just throwing stones from a glass building.
But more on-topic. If allowing ECM on warships then why not allow a C3 system on warships as well. (I actually think that using triangulating data would improve your chances to hit in space quite handily)?
Greyslayer
|
Nightmare
Sergeant
Reged: 11/16/01
Posts: 344
Loc: Finland
|
Some real quotes from AT2...not that they help anyone.
#40386 - 09/30/02 10:43 PM (194.251.240.106)
|
|
|
-Please post the page it's on I would love to see it since after LOOKING THROUGH the book I was not able to find it.
Some relevant passages follow. Not that they`re clear, but at least I get the impression C3 isn`t allowed on fighters or spacecraft. BattleTech scale ECM is legal, although I`d think only fighters bother with it. After all, capital weaponry doesn`t come with Artemis systems. The AT2 section on Tele-Operated Missiles (page 41) doesn`t mention ECM, so at least we can assume BT scale ECM has no effect on those.
AT2, page 46: the chapter titled "Weapons, ammunition and equipment" does contain a passage that might be seen as negative. It tells us to pick weapons from the tables starting at page 99, and that some stuff from the BMR that was left out isn`t used on fighters.
AT2, page 53: "Battle Values".
Step 1 does tell us that only AMS+ammo, screen launchers and ECM systems count as defensive equipment. All else is offensive.
Step 2 specifies only heat and movement for modifying offensive BV. C3 isn`t mentioned, or anything else for that matter.
BUT there are several fighters with Active Probes or TCs. The clanner Vandal mounts a probe, as does the IS Hellcat II. A few clanner and IS fighters mount a TC. I`ve even found two that mounts an ECM suite, the clanner Sabutai B and Jengiz Prime. C3 doesn`t seem to get any screen time at all, in fact I can`t see anything at all about it in my AT2... I would, however,expect the Draconis fighters in TRO 3067 to use C3 if it was legal.
One other note: BMR, unrevised, page 124: C3 Computer. It says that only IS mechs and vehicles may use it. Not a word about fighters. Yet the TC description on page 134 in the same book says "clan units", not specifically which class.
I assume BT scale Active Probes and ECM are useful only for fighters/dropships on the BattleTech map. See hidden units and gain protection from some stuff you`ll only see mounted on mechs.
Oh, one more thing: the AT2 equipment list on page 99 states that NARC Beacons are only effective against ground units, and that only ground units can gain any bonus from them. That`s odd. I think that the whole AT2 book was a rush job, leaving out important information.
--------------------
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Though it has already been stated...
#40388 - 09/30/02 10:56 PM (67.36.180.234)
|
|
|
Page 46. I don't see how you could have missed it, considering the section had a natural draw to it (italic text in a section of standard typeface).
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: What the???
#40390 - 09/30/02 11:57 PM (67.36.180.234)
|
|
|
"What is it with you CBTers going after Rick?"
Wow. I am really impressed. You managed to take my expression of sympathy towards Rick and turn it completely around. Bravo. Here, have a cookie.
"If a playtester knew everything written would you seriously need more than one?"
Yes. You cannot assume that one single playtester will have absolute knowledge about a product, as is the case in this issue. I can understand where a person does not have complete understanding of a source/rulebook. However, would you not agree that if you are going to produce a program to assist in the creation of new designs, that it would be prudent to know all of the applicable rules?
"Of course after all the errors (typos and so on) in the Civil War book you are just throwing stones from a glass building."
Man, you're amazing. You managed to take something that nobody ever said and brought it into this conversation. I mean, you must have some seriously good eyes, because I could not find anything in the post about HeavyMetal Aero being a buggy or inaccurate. Have another cookie.
"If allowing ECM on warships "
I still don't buy the concept of ECM on spacecraft. Look at the way the ECM systems would have to scale up, assuming a straight-line progression. For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume the ground unit is able to fully jam a sphere, and not just a hemisphere. Your standard Guardian ECM Suite is able to jam a sphere that has a volume of 31 million cubic meters. That's a bubble with a radius of 195 meters (180 meters for the six hex range, plus half of the hex you're standing in). Assuming Space ECM suites of 0, 1 and 2 hex radii (using Mike's idea), you end up with volumes of 3.052 trillion cubic meters (~98,316 times larger), 82.406 trillion cubic meters (~2,654,528 times larger), and 381.5 trillion cubic meters (12,289,485 times larger). If you scaled up 1:1, you could only mount an overglorified point defense system on the largest craft. To be able to cover a small fleet, you would need at least a system that would be 100 times as powerful per ton as a GECM, and even then you would still be around 27,000 tons. For an armada that doesn't mind sticking close, the ratio hits 1000:1 or higher.
As for your C3 idea, from a game perspective, it needs balance. Unless you're willing to devote serious percentages of the craft's size (on the order of 20% or higher) to the system, there really is no way to balance out the effects. The reason? Lasers. Crack open a copy of Explorer Corps. Pages 34 and 35 discuss external communications, where it talks about the use of lasers as the primary form of secured ship-to-ship comms. Now unless you want to physically put yourself directly between two enemy WarShips, no amount of electronic noise will stop those beams of light from getting through. Such a system would, for all intents and purposes, be unjamable. Such a system would severely upset the game balance, unless it also occupied a serious percentage of the craft mounting it. But unlike the ECM system, it really does not make any sense to have such a large system that is essentially a bundle of additional communication lasers weigh so much.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: What the???
#40392 - 10/01/02 12:27 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
'Wow. I am really impressed. You managed to take my expression of sympathy towards Rick and turn it completely around. Bravo. Here, have a cookie.'
You used it in a sarcastic way much the way you posted this. A cookie? It better be macadamia nut choc chip!
'However, would you not agree that if you are going to produce a program to assist in the creation of new designs, that it would be prudent to know all of the applicable rules?'
Which is EXACTLY what I was getting at. He had lots of playtesters. Karagin did not PRODUCE the program but he was involved in the overall project and thus he earned his name on the list for that program. Just because he argues with everyone on everything doesn't mean his name shouldn't be there and neither does it mean he should not be involved in testing either.
'Man, you're amazing. You managed to take something that nobody ever said and brought it into this conversation. I mean, you must have some seriously good eyes, because I could not find anything in the post about HeavyMetal Aero being a buggy or inaccurate. Have another cookie.'
Just like you brought Rick's name into this. I remember another fool using this have a cookie approach but I cannot quite remember who that was *shrugs* oh well if its the only way to think of a comeback.
'I still don't buy the concept of ECM on spacecraft.'
I never said I was for it either (the reason for the 'if'), you could not 'cloak' effectively in space with a background because all you need to two different locations to look at the same spot and they will pick up a difference (example of Cray using a light to fool a ship ... the power that light would operate at to reach the ships sensors possibly thousands of kilometers away and still remain at a level that imitates a 'stars light' and also the fact that from a different angle the light will not represent the same star thus create a even bigger discrepancy).
'As for your C3 idea, from a game perspective, it needs balance.'
This was more a if they want to use ECM may as well use a C3-type system (probably more like C3i). I see no problem with the ships tightbeaming each other its getting the right sensor data through a ECM type field on the target that would be a problem (of course optical recognition scanners would overcome this but not really useful in the battletech universe). This is what makes me laugh about ECM and C3 in normal battletech, the Master can simulate a TAG (which is a laser guide) yet requires direct LOS with units to maintain a link (much like a laser link normally does) but can be jammed by the common ECM (like a radio transmission). Just what the hell is it? 
Greyslayer
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: Draft 1
#40399 - 10/01/02 03:59 AM (64.83.29.242)
|
|
|
>I don't buy the reduction rates
Why not? You've made a point about stern-first approaches, but have said nothing about head-on approaches. Gimme proof.
>Aside from some handwavium, or a good dose of HEROChip logic,
Are you trying to set a pleasant tone for this conversation?
>how would you hide the IR signature of "multi-million degree exhaust gases" that are pointed towards your target?
Carefully.  What are hydrogen's emission lines at a million degrees?
Head-on, with the hot rocket nozzles (<--main EM emitters in the engine system), the hydrogen spewing from a large warship amounts to 450 grams a second...from engine nozzles over a hundred meters in diameter. So you have a near-vacuum stream of hot hydrogen.
What, again, is the emission spectrum of hydrogen hot enough to be moving a fly fart short of light speed? It's gamma rays, I think. Gamma rays from a small trace of hot hydrogen. With the IR/visible signature of the hot nozzles hidden, who's going to notice some a tickle of gamma rays?
Ferociously cooled and magnetically insulated rocket nozzles should make stern-first approaches reasonably discrete, too.
>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.
I was borrowing the idea from the B-2, F-22, and F-35.
>How do you deal with the loudest indicator of approaching craft-the jump wave?
Not with ECM, and the "loud indicator" is a faint IR burst that can be overlooked if the arriving jumpship is more than a few AU away.
--------------------
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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Though it has already been stated...
#40407 - 10/01/02 06:23 AM (63.173.170.79)
|
|
|
I am on that page right now...and there is NOTHING about ECM or C3 on that page.
So now that is cleared up, we can go back to look at ideas of using the exsiting equipment or the custom equipment idea that Cray is working on.
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
novakitty
Lieutenant
Reged: 02/18/02
Posts: 447
|
Re: Though it has already been stated...
#40421 - 10/01/02 08:28 AM (192.195.234.26)
|
|
|
I see the phrase: "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."
That is the closest to "No C3 or ECM" that I could find.
--------------------
meow
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Though it has already been stated...
#40432 - 10/01/02 11:10 AM (63.173.170.108)
|
|
|
Since it doesn't list ECM or C3 as not being allowed, the point stands...now can we get back to the original topic of this thread or not?
It has been proven that nothing in the book says they can not be used, so idea is still a vailid one...which is HOW to make an ECM equiped warship...going back to the original thread that I posted, I pointed out how many ECM units or Beagles should be used...thus keeping things with in the BT levels of play.
Cray feels that we need bigger ECM units for the warships, that is an interesting idea and he has posted his thoughts on the matter. So what I am asking is we let Peter and Bob comments stand as votes of NO for this idea and move on instead of going down the same path they seem to want to take all topics they don't agree with.
Can we move BACK ON to the topic and try to reach a middle ground or find away to work with in the Level 2 settings.
Thanks.
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Re: Though it has already been stated...
#40434 - 10/01/02 11:18 AM (4.35.174.250)
|
|
|
>>>Since it doesn't list ECM or C3<<<
THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED (p46.)
Your "Point" does NOT stand.
THIS *IS* the subject at hand. Quit trying to dodge 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.
:)
|
NathanKell
Major
Reged: 04/30/01
Posts: 1310
|
Re: Though it has already been stated...
#40435 - 10/01/02 11:19 AM (24.44.238.62)
|
|
|
Novakitty just posted the exclusion phrase:
"Certain items listed in BMR are not legal on AT2 craft. If it's not on this table, it's not legal."
Neither C3, ECM, or BAP are on the table. Therefore they are not legal. Period.
Now, if you're talking house rules, I fully agree that ECM, probes, C3, etc--properly scaled up--would be useful and desirable.
--------------------
-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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Though it has already been stated...
#40436 - 10/01/02 11:25 AM (63.173.170.108)
|
|
|
Thank you Bob for again trying to destroy a thread you don't support.
Please do not add any more to this since your post will be ignored.
Thank you and have a nice day.
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Though it has already been stated...
#40437 - 10/01/02 11:30 AM (63.173.170.108)
|
|
|
Not legal...interesting...
Try this out:
code:
AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Class/Model/Name: Judson EW Class Corvette
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3067
Vessel Type: WarShip
Rules: Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set: AeroTech2
Mass: 100,000 tons
K-F Drive System: (Unknown)
Power Plant: Standard
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Lamellor Ferro-carbide
Armament:
24 Guardian ECM
24 PPC
8 NL35
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name: Judson EW Class Corvette
Mass: 100,000 tons
Equipment: Mass
Power Plant, Drive & Control: 24,000.00
Thrust: Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Kearny-Fuchida Hyperdrive: Compact (Integrity = 4) 45,250.00
Jump Sail: No Sail (Fusion-Charged K-F) .00
Structural Integrity: 150 15,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 334 Double 70.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5,100.00
Bridge, Controls, Radar, Computer & Attitude Thrusters: 250.00
Fire Control Computers: .00
Food & Water: (377 days supply) 402.00
Hyperpulse Generator: 50.00
Armor Type: Lamellor Ferro-carbide (510 total armor pts) 300.00
Capital Scale Armor Pts
Location: L / R
Fore: 93
Fore-Left/Right: 85/85
Aft-Left/Right: 85/85
Aft: 77
Cargo:
Bay 1: Fighters (6) with 2 doors 900.00
Bay 2: Cargo (1) 1,607.00
Crew and Passengers:
20 Officers (16 minimum) 200.00
65 Crew (45 minimum) 455.00
16 Gunners (16 minimum) 112.00
100 Marines 500.00
12 Bay Personnel .00
Weapons and Equipment Loc SRV MRV LRV ERV Heat Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Guardian ECM Nose -- -- -- -- 0 4.50
3 PPC Nose 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 30 21.00
1 NL35 Nose 4 4 4 -- 52 700.00
3 Guardian ECM FL/R -- -- -- -- 0 9.00
3 PPC FL/R 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 60 42.00
1 NL35 FL/R 4 4 4 -- 104 1,400.00
3 Guardian ECM L/RBS -- -- -- -- 0 9.00
3 PPC L/RBS 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 60 42.00
1 NL35 L/RBS 4 4 4 -- 104 1,400.00
3 Guardian ECM AL/R -- -- -- -- 0 9.00
3 PPC AL/R 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 60 42.00
1 NL35 AL/R 4 4 4 -- 104 1,400.00
3 Guardian ECM Aft -- -- -- -- 0 4.50
3 PPC Aft 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 30 21.00
1 NL35 Aft 4 4 4 -- 52 700.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: Heat: 656 100,000.00
Tons Left: .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 3,537,994,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 27,699
Cost per BV: 127,730.03
Weapon Value: 22,199 (Ratio = .80)
Damage Factors: SRV = 477; MRV = 430; LRV = 202; ERV = 78
Maintenance: Maintenance Point Value (MPV) = 268,725
(121,466 Structure, 135,175 Life Support, 12,084 Weapons)
Support Points (SP) = 122,328 (46% of MPV)
BattleForce2: Not applicable
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
This would NOT be the first time...
#40441 - 10/01/02 11:55 AM (4.35.174.250)
|
|
|
...Rick has made an error regarding the legality of a design.
Your HMA mockup is meaningless. Page 46 cannot be ignored.
--------------------
-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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Karagin, Karagin, Karagin...
#40442 - 10/01/02 11:57 AM (4.35.174.250)
|
|
|
...trying to destroy a thread and trying to BEAT SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL so that the thread can be productive are two entirely different things.
--------------------
-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.
:)
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40467 - 10/01/02 04:13 PM (63.12.141.16)
|
|
|
Page 46 itself is in error. Several Designs pre-exist these rules that in themselves use the equipment not listed.
Would it not be a great and wholely effective idea before you ban it from being used on something that you at least mention that it is NO LONGER LEGAL in the material (such as AT2, but we all know the production values and inherent errors in such work). Now because they couldn't be buggered to produce a half-decent product that is clear and concise disagreements will abound.
Now I classify the BMR to overrule any other rulebook until a new more recent rulebook is released. It says any unit can carry an ECM (page 126 in my non-revised one), it also states the systems they affect such as Artemis IV FCS. So why cannot a dropship use an ECM to protect itself from a Artemis guided munitions? Its not as though its bigger than the 195 meter radius calculated earlier is it? A fighter on a recon mission flying just above the treetops should be able to use its BAP to detect hidden units (unless you are playing level 3 then by definition it will not work, refer to jumping and beagle probes in Max Tech). Its like the Fortress Dropship, it has a long tom. Not legal for aerospace combat but once grounded it can use it in the standard part of the game as usual.
Oh and btw Page 85 in AT2 Vandal Prime BAP Nose, Page 88 HCT-213B Hellcat II BAP Nose, Page 93 Sabutai B ECM Suite Aft and Page 94 Jengiz Primary Configuration ECM Suite AFT. Need I say more?
Oh yeah you are going to go on about page 46 again right? Let me read it clearly
" Unless otherwise noted, all equipment can be used by all vessels of Dropship size or larger. Players building Inner Sphere vessels can select weapons from the Inner Sphere Standard Woeopons Table (p. 99); players building Clan vessels choose from the Clan Standard Weapons Table (pp. 100-101)............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."
It IS noted that aerospace fighters mount ECM and BAP by the mere representation of several aerospace units using those peices of kit in the VERY SAME BOOK. It was not 'otherwise noted' that dropships and warships cannot use these pieces of equipment then, therefore they are LEGAL. What isn't legal about Karagin's design is that there is more than 1 ECM on the 'unit' (p. 126 BMR).
There is no error in the legality of using the equipment, you in no way looked at the number of ECMs on the unit, the error is purely yours.
Greyslayer ... donned the rules-lawyer wig (or was it a mop-head )
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: Draft 1
#40469 - 10/01/02 04:27 PM (4.17.223.29)
|
|
|
"Why not? You've made a point about stern-first approaches, but have said nothing about head-on approaches. Gimme proof."
I'll conceed that braking will really be the only issue, as far as IR detection is concerned. I thought about it last night a little more, and unless you have a monitoring station on the opposite side of the inbound craft, the bulk of the craft will simply shield things.
"Are you trying to set a pleasant tone for this conversation?"
I apologise for my choice of language. I hold your experience and knowledge much too high to make those remarks, and for that I'm sorry.
"who's going to notice some a tickle of gamma rays?"
A new source appearing without a discernable source? It would probably pique my attention.
"Not with ECM, and the "loud indicator" is a faint IR burst that can be overlooked if the arriving jumpship is more than a few AU away."
Well, the IR wave really can't be seen outside of 50,000 km. But that's a side-note. I was speaking of the EMP wave, which has a distinctive signature, and has a detection range of 15AU (2.25 billion kilometers). That would be the biggest issue to overcome. You could either come in at the Zenith or Nadir point, praying that nobody was there to see you. Or you could come in from a pirate point. But that would probably alert the ground crews even more. In either case, I would expect the telescopes scanning the skies. Eventually, you'll get spotted.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: What the???
#40472 - 10/01/02 05:22 PM (4.17.223.29)
|
|
|
"It better be macadamia nut choc chip!
"
You're more than welcome to them. I hate macadamia nuts.
"Karagin did not PRODUCE the program but he was involved in the overall project and thus he earned his name on the list for that program. Just because he argues with everyone on everything doesn't mean his name shouldn't be there"
I'm sure Karagin did some amount of work for the program. Judging by the number of times I've seen his name pop up on the HMA Playtesting Forum as "Last Post By" on Rick's board, he contributed a good number of posts.
"neither does it mean he should not be involved in testing either."
Here I disagree, though that is situtational. This thread proves one of two things. Either Karagin does not, in fact, understand the construction rules of craft in the AeroTech 2 book. If this is the case, then he has no business working on a program that focuses in on those rules. It would be akin to a person being used as a referee at a football game but they never read the rule book.
Or Karagin does know the rules, and for whatever reason refuses to acknowledge that he could be wrong on something.
I'm leaning towards the second myself.
"I never said I was for it either (the reason for the 'if'), you could not 'cloak' effectively in space with a background because all you need to two different locations to look at the same spot and they will pick up a difference"
You don't even need that. Compare a picture with one that was taken at a previous time.
"This is what makes me laugh about ECM and C3 in normal battletech, the Master can simulate a TAG (which is a laser guide) yet requires direct LOS with units to maintain a link (much like a laser link normally does) but can be jammed by the common ECM (like a radio transmission). Just what the hell is it?"
Well, the system itself isn't based on LOS transmission. If it were, you would expect to see the spotters themselves able to replicate the TAG system as well. The whole "Master as a TAG" thing strikes me as a "Well, we need this thing to do just a little more so people won't whine about the weight." kind of a thing. As for the C3 system needing LOS between the members of the network, I'm not sure about that one. Since I don't have my books with me, I can't check now. But I don't recall that requirement being in there. Yes, having LOS between the shooters and the target is required (no using C3 to shoot through a forest and hitting somebody), but not the network. I'll want to double-check that one when I get home.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: What the???
#40474 - 10/01/02 05:40 PM (63.173.170.56)
|
|
|
Actually Peter has it ever accured to you that things may have been changed? Like for example conventional fighters got back their engery weapons which makes the rule in the AT2 book wrong now doesn't it?
And I do seem to recall something meantion of a new erratta sheet for AT2 comming out to cover things and clear up things...yes I do remember that being mentioned on the AT2 forum...
But hey why should I bore you with facts since you know everything...as for being wrong...why should I worry about it when we have folks like you running around trying to prove everyone is wrong unless they like what you like...oh wait that would be a personal attack just like your post above in this thread...drat and I wasn't going to stoop to your level. 
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: What the???
#40475 - 10/01/02 06:48 PM (4.17.223.29)
|
|
|
I'll counter you with this one:
Has it ever occured to you that I am about three steps ahead of you with knowledge of such things, however discussion of that would violate an NDA?
Hartford will be writing the FAQ. That's a given, and announced a while back. However, it is not out yet. Which means that it has absolutely no worth to this discussion at all. When it is released, thus making changes to the rules, then it can and will apply.
But that is in the future, and we are talking about now. And as of now, your example of conventional fighters mounting energy weapons is just as illegal as it was last week, the week before that, and the week before that.
"why should I worry about it when we have folks like you running around trying to prove everyone is wrong unless they like what you like"
It's funny, that situtation. I deal with people who have differing opinions than I do every day. I don't deal with them in the same manner as I deal with you. However, that's because they are not only willing to actually do a little research, but if they find out that they are in error, they're man enough (or women enough in the case of the opposite gender) to admit it.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: What the???
#40476 - 10/01/02 06:57 PM (63.12.145.127)
|
|
|
'I hate macadamia nuts.'
Ahh then more macadamia shortbread for me too! 
'Well, the system itself isn't based on LOS transmission. If it were, you would expect to see the spotters themselves able to replicate the TAG system as well. The whole "Master as a TAG" thing strikes me as a "Well, we need this thing to do just a little more so people won't whine about the weight." kind of a thing. As for the C3 system needing LOS between the members of the network, I'm not sure about that one. Since I don't have my books with me, I can't check now. But I don't recall that requirement being in there. Yes, having LOS between the shooters and the target is required (no using C3 to shoot through a forest and hitting somebody), but not the network. I'll want to double-check that one when I get home.'
As such the original just said you could designate a unit with the c3 command lance as the controlling unit and as long as a couple of units has LOS to each other its fine. Later books specifically state that as long as the Master is on the mapboard everything is hunky-dory. It does work though the usage of two systems (laser and radio) is buggy to me. Then I read the ECM rules and it states (p. 126 BMR on C3 Computer:)
"ECM has the effect of 'cutting off' any c3-equipped unit from its network. If a c3 master unit is isolated from the network by being inide the ECM radius, the entire portion of the network 'below' it is effectively shut off (all units subordinate to it on the diagram on p.124). Only those C3 units that can draw an LOS to the master unit that does not pass into or through the ECM radius can access the network. If the master unit that connects the lances of a company is inside the ECM effect radius, the link between the lances is lost, though each lance's network would function normally (unless the ECM also interfered with them individually)."
They also go on in the example about this on page 127. This totally goes against the 'just having the mech on the map' part that was explained earlier. Its up to you to decide which one is correct, I have gone for the LOS version as described in ECM though it does beg the question:
Would not the company command unit have to have a visible LOS to the Lance C3 units to maintain company integrity under these rules?
Fun fun fun.... of course unless they changed their definition of LOS just for that particular example which would annoy everyone no end (Line of Sight rules P. 25-27 BMR).
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: What the???
#40477 - 10/01/02 07:41 PM (63.173.170.56)
|
|
|
Actually Peter, anyone who has seen the posted ships by testers ON any of the sites already have an idea of what has been changed or not...
And anyone who has bought and recivied HMAERO already knows that changes have been made.
So the idea that things HAVE change is relative to the topic and should be considered.
But I for you know all and everyone else knows nothing about the game...so talking with about this is pointless.
Thanks for you input...I will file it with the NO group.
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
masdog5
Sergeant
Reged: 08/13/02
Posts: 189
|
Re: What the???
#40478 - 10/01/02 07:44 PM (205.213.146.31)
|
|
|
All of this begs one big question. In an era where communications satelites are over a millenium old, why would a command and control system need LOS when it could just bounce signals off of a comm sat/dropship/warship/other orbiting comm. hub?
Edited by masdog5 (10/01/02 07:47 PM)
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: What the???
#40481 - 10/01/02 09:30 PM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
They have a rule for satellites in level 3 play (basically a +2 to initiative or something for certain units with a satelite uplink but generally only a couple of units have that capability). Also when say someone attacks they generally take out the satelites. You wouldn't get much usage out of them unless you held a space advantage.
BTW how many resources would you dedicate to protecting your satelites? One aerospace fighter could take out most of your network even if you tried to protect them with superior forces.
Of course it also has problems of fitting in with the level of consistancy of battletech. This being said why would a ECM bubble affect a C3 if they transmit over high obstacles like hills and tall buildings... why not over a ECM bubble?
Greyslayer
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: What the???
#40491 - 10/02/02 12:38 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
"Its up to you to decide which one is correct"
Only if I write the next rule book that covers this. 
I read over that section. Then I went back to the C3 section. Then I came back to the ECM section and read over the examples a few times. Then I grabbed the original BMR (I use the Revised version, as it is the most current), and repeated the process, to be sure nothing changed with respect to the systems (nothing did).
The situtation where LOS applies seems to be restricted to when you're taking ECM into account. Flip your BMR (not Revised) over to page 125 and take a look at the C3 example. The text that goes along with the picture states that the 'Mech in Hex D can use the targeting feed from the 'Mech in Hex B, but must account for the point of woods in Hex F. But if you trace LOS between Hex D and Hex B, you'll find that there is no LOS. Yet the example says that Hex D can still use Hex B's feed.
As for the ECM version of that diagram, though the 'Mech in Hex E is closer to the 'Mech in Hex A than the 'Mech in Hex D, Hex E has no LOS to Hex A, which means that the 'Mech in Hex E is worthless with respect to the 'Mech in Hex A at this point.
"This totally goes against the 'just having the mech on the map' part that was explained earlier."
Actually, it makes sense. Take a look at the diagrams for the company-level network arrangements. They show that Slaves are always controlled by a Master Computer. If that Master Computer gets taken off-line (by turning it off, having it destroyed, or having its communication links jammed via ECM), those Slaves have nothing to talk to. That's also one way the C3i system is an improvement over the C3 system. Their nodes are all interconnected to the other nodes, instead of everything linking to a single source.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Bob_Richter
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40493 - 10/02/02 12:41 AM (4.35.174.250)
|
|
|
>>>Several Designs pre-exist these rules that in themselves use the equipment not listed.<<<
And are thus rendered illegal by them.
Just as they are rendered illegal by their excessive nose armor.
>>>Now I classify the BMR to overrule any other rulebook until a new more recent rulebook is released.<<<
Such as AT2, for example.
>>>It IS noted that aerospace fighters mount ECM and BAP by the mere representation of several aerospace units using those peices of kit in the VERY SAME BOOK.<<<
ALL OF THOSE AEROSPACE FIGHTERS ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!
Why would it matter if they happened to have a little extra illegal equipment aboard?
--------------------
-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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Re: What the???
#40495 - 10/02/02 12:47 AM (4.35.174.250)
|
|
|
>>>So the idea that things HAVE change is relative to the topic and should be considered.<<<
As is the idea that Rick *HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE*
I hate to keep harping on it, but it's the truth.
I think I may have to go straight to the source on this one. Curse you, Karagin, I hate wasting people's time. Especially mine.
--------------------
-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
Captain
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 964
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40497 - 10/02/02 01:00 AM (142.179.27.248)
|
|
|
They are not illegal. Just look at the designs from the DropShips and JumpShips book and try to make them using BS2. A good example is the Seeker. It's 3700 tons, and the 64 light vehicles weigh 3200 tons. It still goes 5/8. Ya see, in FASA's mind, sometimes ships are built with differing Techs and these ones can no longer be made. that's the excuse from BS2 (approprate name....)
My theory is as follows: The instant factories (just add water, tm) lack some ingredients, so the new ships aren't as nutricious and as a side fault, cannot mount advanced equipment. Maybe the Inner Sphere should go back to StarLeague Organic Fighter Farming. Less yeild but more quality.
--------------------
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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40498 - 10/02/02 01:07 AM (63.173.170.125)
|
|
|
None of the ships in AT2 are illegal. Sorry but I can say this with fact since I spent a weekend entering them to check the program out as did others as did Randal.
So how about you stop saying that the program is not following the rules and wake up and understand that it is.
Better still why don't you drop the $$$ for it and then you will for your self...
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: What the???
#40499 - 10/02/02 01:13 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
'The situtation where LOS applies seems to be restricted to when you're taking ECM into account. Flip your BMR (not Revised) over to page 125 and take a look at the C3 example. The text that goes along with the picture states that the 'Mech in Hex D can use the targeting feed from the 'Mech in Hex B, but must account for the point of woods in Hex F. But if you trace LOS between Hex D and Hex B, you'll find that there is no LOS. Yet the example says that Hex D can still use Hex B's feed.'
I am aware of the example on 125. It helps support the 'anywhere on the map idea'. The example on 127 however has 4 attacking mechs and one defending mech with ECM, it specifically deals with LOS (as given in the ECM description about C3) and the affect of LOS on the Master unit. If LOS is blocked then the master cannot communicate with the slave units regardless of what is blocking LOS (its funny how it actually went out of its way to explain that in the ECM section though even if the ECM doesn't jam the master still requires LOS to work?) Why not just say it always needs to do this or that is only ever has to use the indirect approach.
One or the other thats all it should ever had been. Because of this wishy-washyness I treat the master as that it MUST maintain LOS with all units of its force to maintain an effective netword to all nodes otherwise any node not having direct LOS to the Master carrying unit loses network coherency.
Greyslayer ... clear as mud can be it is.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: What the???
#40501 - 10/02/02 01:13 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see changes have been made. Nobody's challenging that.
So Rick made a program that's forward compatable. Good for him. He has less code to change (if any) when the FAQ comes out.
It still doesn't make the designs legal right now. Those designs that have ECM were introduced in 1992, in TRO: 3055. Working backwards from that, the rules were last codified in The BattleTech Compendium (with the TWolf and Toad on the cover). It simply states to use the equipment listed on the charts therein. And those rules were from AeroTech. Flipping forward a few years, to '96, we have BattleSpace. It also states to use its charts, but doesn't list any equipment. So BattleSpace made those designs illegal, and AT2 continued. Why those OmniFighters were not adjusted has me scratching my head, I guess Bryan missed it. But that's not the only discrepency involving illegal equipment mounted on a fighter. Technically, the Hydaspes variant listed in TRO:3067 is not legal, since the equipment charts do not list the Clan TarComp. However, you could make an arguement that the language in AT2 (" AeroTech 2 (AT2) is designed first as a supplement for BattleTech..." -p4, AT2), and Field Manual: Federated Suns ("All of these items are for use in Level 2 BattleTech..." -p158, FM:FS; as well as "Inner Sphere targeting computers follow the rules for Clan targeting computers..." -p161, FM:FS) grandfather the Clan TarComps into the designs.
"Thanks for you input...I will file it with the NO group."
Ya know, I never did answer your original question. Lemme go do that, so you can be sure you can place me in the proper group.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: What the???
#40502 - 10/02/02 01:17 AM (63.173.170.15)
|
|
|
I am sorry Peter, but it is you who is wrong about this. Everything in the HMAERO Program was run by Chris and Randal, thus it is all legal.
I am sorry you wouldn't or can't see or understand that, but until Rick changes things because Randal said they had to be changed I am sticking with program and that fact that I know it's correct. You can do as you please.
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: What the???
#40503 - 10/02/02 01:19 AM (63.173.170.15)
|
|
|
The drop it, and don't comment anymore and leave the thread and find something else to do...
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40504 - 10/02/02 01:28 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
Whoa someone has gotten a bee in your 3025 bonnet (and such a fetching bonnet it must be ).
Seriously though You could understand one or two errors on units total but several? Either the equipment is illegal or it isn't, which is it? 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 (as such it doesn't directly state that the ECM and BAP are illegal items just those weapons and equipment not listed in the book and funnily enough ECM and BAP is listed since it is included in units in the book ).
All this loophole logic is getting to me though ... me need a dose of bailing wire-tech! (3025 games for those who don't get it)
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: What the???
#40505 - 10/02/02 01:30 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
Actually there is that bit about having multiple ECMs on a unit being illegal in level 2 play that Rick didn't pick up on...... so errors do exist just not what the others seem to be thinking.
Greyslayer
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40506 - 10/02/02 01:31 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
"One area I am having trouble with is how many ECM units should be put on the vessel"
One every 195 meters along a single plane of the craft (I would suggest one that bisects the K-F Core that runs at a right angle to the decks and parallel with a set of walls-easier that way), with concentric ring of ECM emitters that use the original set placed as guide points. That way you can surround the craft as well as anything that can get its entire body within that 195 meter bubble. You know, fighters and small craft and the like.
"as well as how many Beagle Probes."
It would be a similiar arrangement as ECM systems here, but you would replace the distance numbers with 135 meters (165 meters if you felt inclined to use Clantech).
I can understand wanting the ECM, seeing how that might actually do something against Artemis-enhanced missile systems (though no longer receiving mid-course corrections for the final 195 meters after flying up to 360,000 (108,000 meters for SRMs) really doesn't seem that important with a target as large as a WarShip). But what's the purpose of the BAPs? I mean, are you expecting to find a target hidden in the stark nakedness of an AT2 battlefield? And using systems that can't even reach the far end of a craft, let alone another hex?
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: What the???
#40508 - 10/02/02 01:37 AM (63.173.170.15)
|
|
|
Given that each section of the ship can have numerous bays that should and seems to mean that the ECM units are in a single bay thus not all in one single location.
And if you check Max Tech under the ECCM rules it meantions something about ECM being used in on or the other setting not both thus it would suggest that you could place two ECM units on a mech, one for ECM use and the other to counter the other guy's ECM...
Maybe what needs to be done is a total rewrite for the ENTIRE ECM rule set and then all of the loopholes and such cna be dealt with...
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40509 - 10/02/02 01:40 AM (63.173.170.15)
|
|
|
BAPs are more for their BETTER senor system...adds to what ever the ship already has kind of idea...
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40510 - 10/02/02 01:41 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
How about a 'drone frigate' like from Homeworld. I mean they have drone tech on the ground with all those little things so why not drone ECMs that can make a large bubble around the frigate and thus protect anything else in its larger bubble?
'But what's the purpose of the BAPs? I mean, are you expecting to find a target hidden in the stark nakedness of an AT2 battlefield? And using systems that can't even reach the far end of a craft, let alone another hex? '
Maybe a deepspace mine-sweeper? Seriously if you haven't detected something over the last several thousand kilometers than the last hundred meters or so isn't going to matter
Hang on I know what a BAP would be handy on!!! A deep space garbage scowl. Of course having a BAP on a aerospace fighter or say space station might protect it a bit from 'trojan' ships carrying cargo it shouldn't be (such as mechs). I can't see it being useful in combat though.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: What the???
#40511 - 10/02/02 01:49 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
ECCM is entirely level 3. The rule I quoted is level 2 and was in material after Max Tech was released. All there would need to be is to allow unlimited ECMs in level3 design but only 1 in level 2 design. It is seriously that simple. Of course the functionality of ECCMs and Stealth armour was poorly dealt with earlier this year so if they do deal with ECM again maybe they could explain a little better how ECCM can jam a ECM but not jam a ECM (as the example of stealth armour supposedly still working even after it was jammed....BS). While they are at it they could go over C3 again its just plain wrong .
Greyslayer ... why not rewrite the whole bloody book again
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40512 - 10/02/02 01:52 AM (63.173.170.41)
|
|
|
Er...drone warships are already accounted for...recall the Caspair Drones of the vaunted SDS system that portects Terra...
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Found the error in your logic.
#40513 - 10/02/02 01:53 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
It's a definitation thing.
Take a careful look at the wording in the ECM effects on C3 networks on page 126. It says "Only those C3 units that can draw an LOS to the master unit that does not pass into or through the ECM radius can access the network." Now go to page 25, where the term LOS is defined (as it applies to BattleTech). "The LOS between two units is defined by a straight line running from the center of the attacking unit's hex to the center of the target unit's hex." In its purest form, it is simple a line measured from point A to point B on a map. Also, in the line above that section, it specifies that an attack can only be made if there is a clear LOS (this is important).
Now flip back to 126, same part as before. Nowhere will you find mention that you must have a clear LOS. All you do is trace the LOS from the Master unit to the Slave unit. If that line starts, ends, or passes through a hex that is under the effect of an enemy ECM system, the C3 link betwen the two units is severed.
As additional strength, I will point out again the example on page 125. The 'Mech in Hex D does not have a clear LOS to the 'Mech in Hex B, yet is still able to use the targeting information from the 'Mech in Hex B and fire at the 'Mech in Hex A as if the range were only two hexes (though that point of woods does still apply).
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40514 - 10/02/02 01:55 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
No no no .... drones as in small vessels probably about the size of a very small fighter. I gather you have never seen or played Homeworld on the PC then?
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40515 - 10/02/02 01:58 AM (63.173.170.41)
|
|
|
Seen it, have to play it...I followed what you meant. was pointing out that Drones have already been done for warships so to speak...
Now a whole wing or more of drone fighters would be interesting....and yes I know what show that idea came from... 
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40516 - 10/02/02 02:00 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it continues to define LOS on the rest of page 25 and page 26 that includes other variables that it takes into account (and then there is of course the 'sight' bit on line of sight ) ie LOS must not be obstructed by trees and so on.
Don't know about you but LOS usually means that I can physically see the target
Greyslayer
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40518 - 10/02/02 02:12 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
"I mean they have drone tech on the ground with all those little things so why not drone ECMs that can make a large bubble around the frigate and thus protect anything else in its larger bubble?"
The only drones I know of in BTech are the remote-operated vehicles, but I don't see how they would help here. And these bubbles don't get bigger as you add more ECM nodes. You can just cover a larger area. It's simply placing them close enough so their coverage areas overlap slightly. Actually, you'll end up covering the surface of the WarShip with something that looks like a cellular network.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40519 - 10/02/02 02:16 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
How do you deal with the range limitations? BAPs are only good for 135 meters in any direction. That means if you mount one on the nose of your Nightlord, I can hide from it and still be standing on the outer hull of the very same WarShip.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40520 - 10/02/02 02:19 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
Would you agree with me that if you found yourself in those situtations (a Level 2 hill or three points of Woods or what have you), you would have yourself an obstructed LOS? Just a simple yes or no will do.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40522 - 10/02/02 02:23 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
Yes.
That is what LOS means to me.
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40523 - 10/02/02 02:26 AM (63.173.170.41)
|
|
|
Range...the biggest gray area in the game...
IF each section of the ship has the ship's sensors and a BAP, I doubt you will be hiding since one or the other would have found you...and as you pointed it out this is space....
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40524 - 10/02/02 02:28 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
And if those objects were not there, you would have a Clear LOS? Again, just a yes or no.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40525 - 10/02/02 02:29 AM (63.173.170.41)
|
|
|
I am I reading this right...Peter forgot about the SDS drones of the Reagan System around Terra????!!???
All those Caspair Drones must be heart broken that they are forgotten about....   
And then there is the Boomerange Spotter Plane...but I think that one is now manned...
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40526 - 10/02/02 02:32 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
Of course.
Get to your point. I can see where you are going but several short answers waste other peoples bandwidth
Greyslayer
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40527 - 10/02/02 02:33 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
"IF each section of the ship has the ship's sensors and a BAP, I doubt you will be hiding since one or the other would have found you"
The active radar systems on a WarShip can get a return on a target out to 100,000 kilometers. The Active Probe can do that same thing, but only to 135 meters. How will the second improve upon the first?
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40528 - 10/02/02 02:39 AM (63.173.170.41)
|
|
|
Call it redunancy to avoid being caught with your pants around your ankles...that or we could go back to the two rubber bands and the gerbirl trick...
If one misses the what ever it is, then the other system SHOULD catch it...guess that depends on who is writing the story...
And given the other "fluff" abilities of the BAP add in what you want as to what it can do etc...
Never said this was the best idea in the world, just an idea... 
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40529 - 10/02/02 02:40 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
"Get to your point."
If you insist. I studied law for about three semesters on top of my main field, every now and then it's fun to use the old skills.
The term LOS, as defined and used by BattleTech, is independent of actual line of sight. In that case, the term "Clear LOS" is used. However, you have shortened that to simply "LOS" for redundancy issues. Just like me and pretty much everybody else I know. The problem is that BattleTech uses the term "Clear LOS" to describe a clear view of your target, "Obstructed LOS" to describe an interrupted view of your target, and "LOS" to simply describe the line between you and your target. In this last example, whether you can or cannot actually see your target is irrellevent, as that is covered by the first two terms.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40530 - 10/02/02 02:44 AM (67.36.181.236)
|
|
|
"Never said this was the best idea in the world, just an idea"
Indeed.
--------------------
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40531 - 10/02/02 03:03 AM (216.14.192.226)
|
|
|
Maybe you should deal with this method of describing more often . It certainly made more sense to me that way. Of course I covered this angle in my earlier post by saying 'unless they have used a different definition of LOS for this' in which they obviously did. (*mutters under breath* the b$%^ards).
Greyslayer
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: Draft 1
#40553 - 10/02/02 08:12 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
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/20/01
Posts: 235
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40564 - 10/02/02 02:04 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
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/26/01
Posts: 208
Loc: South Carolina, USA
|
Re: ECM Warships
#40573 - 10/02/02 06:17 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.
--------------------
Rick Raisley
heavymetal@bellsouth.net
HeavyMetal Pro, Vee and Lite Home Page:
www.heavymetalpro.com
|
Greyslayer
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: Found the error in your logic.
#40574 - 10/02/02 06:37 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
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/26/01
Posts: 208
Loc: South Carolina, USA
|
Re: I really feel sorry for Rick. - Don't!
#40575 - 10/02/02 06:46 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! ;-)
--------------------
Rick Raisley
heavymetal@bellsouth.net
HeavyMetal Pro, Vee and Lite Home Page:
www.heavymetalpro.com
|
Bob_Richter
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40582 - 10/02/02 08:07 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
General
Reged: 04/23/01
Posts: 2886
Loc: Richland, WA (USA)
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40583 - 10/02/02 08:18 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
Captain
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 964
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40595 - 10/02/02 10:07 PM (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
Captain
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 964
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40596 - 10/02/02 10:17 PM (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
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40602 - 10/02/02 11:00 PM (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
Captain
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 964
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40610 - 10/03/02 12:56 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
Major
Reged: 05/11/01
Posts: 1481
Loc: Queensland, Australia
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40615 - 10/03/02 02:09 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
Captain
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 964
|
Re: This would NOT be the first time...
#40673 - 10/03/02 01:34 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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
[Re: Karagin]
#134436 - 07/27/06 07:46 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
Recruit
Reged: 01/27/04
Posts: 99
Loc: Tulsa
|
Re: ECM Warships
[Re: Karagin]
#134615 - 07/31/06 04:41 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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: ECM Warships
[Re: Gnome76]
#134641 - 08/01/06 12:41 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
Private
Reged: 10/19/06
Posts: 29
|
Re: ECM Warships
[Re: Karagin]
#141118 - 12/04/06 10:51 AM (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
Private
Reged: 10/19/06
Posts: 29
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: Cray]
#141441 - 12/08/06 02:08 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 02:15 PM)
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: NewPharoah]
#141443 - 12/08/06 02:33 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
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: NewPharoah]
#141513 - 12/11/06 06:40 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
Corporal
Reged: 12/13/06
Posts: 80
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: Toontje]
#141653 - 12/13/06 10:08 AM (207.160.205.13)
|
|
|
Windows on ships are not a good idea because of holes. Better to use cameras.
--------------------
Greetings to you too.
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4147
Loc: North America
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: NewPharoah_Max]
#141690 - 12/13/06 09:07 PM (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
Corporal
Reged: 12/13/06
Posts: 80
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: Cray]
#141804 - 12/15/06 03:04 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
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: NewPharoah_Max]
#141811 - 12/15/06 03:51 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
Corporal
Reged: 12/13/06
Posts: 80
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: Toontje]
#141857 - 12/16/06 09:13 AM (207.160.205.13)
|
|
|
Yeah, I know what you meant.
--------------------
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: Toontje]
#142329 - 12/23/06 08:48 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
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: Karagin]
#142753 - 01/01/07 04:50 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
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6415
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Whats the point of having an ECM warship?
[Re: Toontje]
#142754 - 01/01/07 05:06 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.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
