 December 7, 2011 - 5:31am | Its been stated before energy sensors would have greater range then what's stated in the book. I think the book reflect game scale and playability decisions. Perhaps we can adjust the range and set numbers for the chance to detect at 500,000 that are easier then detection at greater ranges. Basically at 500,000 detection is automatic and at 500,001 to 1,000,000 there is a skill role required. Difficulty modifiers for range would seem appropriate. Stealth technology could be a factor. Actions taken by the party that wants to hide could also be a factor. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
December 7, 2011 - 5:33am | Oh BTW, is one light sec. 300,000 a realistic range for radar in space? I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
December 7, 2011 - 5:34am | And what about lidar? Should we add it to the game? I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
December 7, 2011 - 6:01am | On a related note: I has also thinking that the rules concerning extreme ranges and radio messages and time delays; in a 2.0 of the rules there should be a table with time delay and range for radio messages. That brings up the issue of sensors with greater range and time it took for the information to reach the detecting ship is there a game value to factoring in the fact that yes you just detected a ship but that information is old and that ship is nolonger there. I guessing the answer is no since we probably are only talking about ranges of 3-5 light seconds at most. With game turns scaled at 10 minutes its probably not a factor. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 March 11, 2015 - 5:00pm | Energy sensors are actually a bit of a kludge for "seeing" something that normal sensors can pick up anyway. In real life we could "sense" the space shuttles main engines firing (if it were possible) in interplanetary space out to Alpha Centauri. (Albeit a little over 4 years AFTER the fact :) ) The Shuttle manuevering jets can be easily detected out to the orbit of Jupiter with basic visual sensors and we can radar map features on Mars, Venus and some Near-Earth-Asteroids at thousands of kilometers. Really, the "energy sensor" should be just a computer and program system for advanced detection. The sensors are already in place. I'd suggest three types of sensors (and be vauge to avoid getting caught by technology of course) and detecton systems: 1) Basic Passive. Visual and other sensors with a basic detection software package. Can't be used for targeting. 2) Basic Active. Same as above but with some active (radiating) sensors such as radar/lidar, etc and a more advanced set of detection and targeting software. This is your basic weapons and targeting system. 3) Advanced Active. Serious sensors and software enough to range on and track objects seriously out of range. And of course a space station has much more deep and advanced sensor suites. I've also noted that the rules, while having somthing on range diffusion of weapons has nothing on it being more difficult to hit at longer ranges. (Or did I miss that?) Hitting something at a range of 3-5 light-seconds with light speed weapons is an issue. (BTW: IIRC, I'll look, but I think Buck Rogers had a set of radio delay rules in it somewhere) Rndy |
 March 12, 2015 - 5:50am | Actually the range of SF weapons isn't all that great related to light travel time. 10 hexes on the board is only 1/3 of a light second and that's about the maximum range of any weapon (some go out to 12 but thats not much farther). The range diffusion actually affects your to hit chance so it does make things farther away harder to hit. But if you hit you still do the same damage. It's actually mislabeled as it doesn't diffuse the damage but rather reduces the probability of hitting. Although a better name doesn't come to mind. As to sensors, I think you can still track and fire weapons on a passive system. Especially at the close ranges we're talking about. I'd almost make using the passive system the base, using the active system gives you (and your opponents) a bonus for more accurate positions. If you radiate, everyone will be able to pick up on it so both sides get the bonus. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
March 13, 2015 - 5:09pm | As I understand it range DOES actually effect the amount of energy you can deposit on the target due to various factors. In a vacuum of course its a lot less but for "charged-particle-beams" (which is the electron/proton beam) its actually pretty bad which is why neutral beams are prefered. (IIRC because I admit to getting that backwards more often than not) Considering how much you can raster a beam across a given volume of space I suppose the exact damage is going to even out over the "turn" and your "to-hit" chances are statistically even but I suspect you're going to be "weighting" the fire towards a specific sector of space rather than spreading it out to try and maximize the damage. With a 10 minute "turn" I'd never figured that it was a single shot with the weapons fired but a series of shots along the most likely trajectories. Lighting up with sensors: The ships are going to be 'radiating' enough for everyone to see no matter what you do. Active doesn't really effect that all that much as your not going to get any better "lock" by tracking his emissions since he's probably got some sort of Electronic Warfare going even if its just jamming decoys. (Reading the new construction rules but I have to say I still don't see a "decoy" working as mimicing the launching ship. The drive signature alone will give it away and any active scan is going to blow right through the ruse. As a "electronic" jamming and deception decoy radiating like mad it has a small chance of successfully drawing off incoming fire as long as its relativly close to the launching ship but once either fires off the drive that goes away) And technically "active" means he can and will be overloading YOUR sensors with false data. He can't actually "hide" what he's doing but using his weapons in "non-damaging" mode to overload yours is going to be a majority of what he's doing when he isn't actually "firing" to damage you. Couple that with his radar and lidar sending back false data for yours to pick up and sort out... That always bugged me about games like "Starcruiser" where the assumption was it was similar to submarine battles or air battles where the first guy to radiate lost. Your going to be radiating enough for anyone with a decent telescope and tracking computer program can follow your every move on "passive" so denying yourself the most accurate and concise tracking and targeting data on the little increase chance of being tracked "more accurately" due to active emissions is pretty silly. Passives' problem (I will agree it CAN be used for weapons) is that it IS passive and all its data is gathered that way which means you ONLY get what the enemy sends out AFTER he's done it. Meanwhile a simple radar/lidar setup is going to tell you things the enemy is doing when he's NOT radiating... yet. (For example he's "turned" to a certain degree and IF he lights up his drive his new vector will be among these... Otherwise you only know his new vector AFTER he lights his drive off, that could be a critical few seconds warning) Passive I'd have a negative modifier Active gives no modifier Randy |
March 13, 2015 - 7:19pm | Note on Radio time versus distance, the KH Campaign book notes that normal radio travells 300,000km per second so a conversation taking place at 30 million kilometers takes 100 seconds for the signal to travel to the reciever and any reply will take 100 seconds (plus) to get back. A subspace radio costs 20,000cr while a "normal" radio is only 1,000cr but for any conversation beyond a few seconds delay I'd suspect everyone uses subspace radio instead. Randy |
