| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Raven Redstar wrote: | By adding codes to existing sensor bonuses and skill, you are opening up the possibility that you can put a nincompoop at the sensor station and they do a good job.
Or were you planning on getting rid of the existing bonuses from sensor suites? |
Not sure yet. There are some obvious issues with the proposal. While it appeals to my sense of accuracy, dice values would quickly skyrocket, just as you suggested. Ultimately, it might be easier to have the sensor signature be a smaller, static value (maybe one for every 1D of Hull dice, which is then subtracted from the base difficulty). |
I like +1 to roll or -1 to difficulty because it's fast and simple. You could also use multipliers for increased scale.
Starfighter = 1x modifier
Capital = 2x modifier
Death Star = 3x modifier
You could use those multipliers for rough size guesstimates with non ship bodies like asteroids or comets as well.
So for detecting an ISD with no sensor baffles, you're looking at the sensor operator's roll + 14 which means they'll easily be able to detect it at moderate ranges even if they're not the best sensor operator.
You could also scale back the bonus for using life form scanners by using the character's strength +1 per die or +1 per 2 dice in strength, -1 for each die of wound penalty or -1 for each 2D in wound penalties. Which would explain why you want a skilled sensor operator for search and rescue missions and other such operations.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | Given sensor signature will vary by the type of sensors being employed to detect, eg. a signal return cross section (using active sensors) will be hull dependent, an electroptical signature (using passive sensors) will be power dependent. |
That doesn't take into account passive detection of mass (Hull) using a Crystal Grav-Field Trap. While CGT arrays as put forth by Timothy Zahn would be rare and hugely expensive, individual units would be included in most sensor suites (in fact, any ship with a hyperdrive would need one to detect a nearby gravity field to activate the hyperdrive cut-out). For simplicity's sake, I'll most likely just end up sticking with the same basic sensor signature, but then applying bonuses to Passive to detect active transmissions.
| Quote: | | First thing they teach fighter pilots in military is your radar range of emissions is twice as far as the range to pick up a signal return (eg. a 100km detect range means an enemy RWR alarm goes off at 200km from you), so an enemy will always see you before you see him whenever you do a radar sweep. |
I was aware of that, but for some reason, I had thought that the multiplier was much higher than twice as far. I was considering a x4 or x5 modifier for Passive sensors to detect active transmissions. x2 is much simpler, so that works for me.
| Quote: | A general House rule we tossed in without really thinking about it was to increase the sensor range per round, so that sensor range is the range of sensor return within a combat round, after two rounds sensor emissions have travelled twice as far and so on, so that spending an hour could allow you to sweep an entire system from the orbit of a planet, due to such physics-bending technology as tachyon collectors and so forth.
If an X-Wing pilot spends 10 combat rounds performing a dedicated sensor search in a single direction, he gets a sensor return from 750 space units away. |
It's a thought. I read in a Tom Clancy novel that the radars on an Aegis cruiser could get a radar return off the moon if their sensor systems weren't "gated" to ignore returns that take longer than a given amout of time to return. The issue, however, is sensitivity. Sending an active sensor pulse out in all directions is going to degrade exponentially as distance increases, and even more so when it is reflected back.
| Quote: | | Some House rules for passive sensors could be... |
As much as possible, I'd like to take these modifiers and apply them to the individual sensor signature of each craft, so that, rather than running down a list of modifiers and picking which ones apply, the appropriate modifiers are included in the stats, so that, to generate the appropriate modifier, you simply run down the stat, pick out what is active and what isn't, add it up, then apply the total to the difficulty.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | Hey I like that idea, rolled into all the other additions in our game of course and analoguous to the listed base difficulties to detect, so that...
the ISD categories should go..
passive 0-25/50/100 (as moderate is the 1:1 ratio by default to detect)
scan 1-100/150/200 (as easy is the 1:1 ratio to detect)
search 10-200/300/400 (as easy is the 1:1 ratio for listed range)
and minimum range is the range below which sensors are ineffective, so that hovering point blank over the hull of a vessel leaves you registering only to its passive sensors (can be handled by running silent, like the Falcon in ESB). |
Good point. I like the idea of being able to be under the sensors. I'm curious as to why you put the minimum range for Search higher than for Scan. Shouldn't they be the same?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: | I like +1 to roll or -1 to difficulty because it's fast and simple. You could also use multipliers for increased scale.
Starfighter = 1x modifier
Capital = 2x modifier
Death Star = 3x modifier |
Alternately, you could use the numbers from the Scale modifier, so that a Capital Ship's sensor signature automatically increases by +6 when being scanned by a starfighter, and a Death Star scale object would be an additional +12.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's true, it would keep the total numbers down a bit as well, which is good when you're essentially operating in a game with a 1-31 difficulty scale. I'd go with that instead.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | vanir wrote: | Hey I like that idea, rolled into all the other additions in our game of course and analoguous to the listed base difficulties to detect, so that...
the ISD categories should go..
passive 0-25/50/100 (as moderate is the 1:1 ratio by default to detect)
scan 1-100/150/200 (as easy is the 1:1 ratio to detect)
search 10-200/300/400 (as easy is the 1:1 ratio for listed range)
and minimum range is the range below which sensors are ineffective, so that hovering point blank over the hull of a vessel leaves you registering only to its passive sensors (can be handled by running silent, like the Falcon in ESB). |
Good point. I like the idea of being able to be under the sensors. I'm curious as to why you put the minimum range for Search higher than for Scan. Shouldn't they be the same? |
Scan is tracking mode for the fire control system. Search is the active sensor mode to acquire targets at range. Close in you've got things like lobe interference and blind spots whereas scan just keeps an acquisition unless it does something to drop off. On a phased array scan uses the hull as antennae, but slotted arrays (specific antennae dishes) for search, these have blind spots.
ie. it's mostly to strongly classify the scan and search functions as separate sensor modes for specific purposes. If you want to track targets in combat, use scan, if you want to find things at range, use search, even if the power-dice on both are the same and there's little difference in range.
So rather than just adding minor benefits to using search over scan to find the enemy at range, I added the arguable penalties to use the search function to track targets at close range, you need to use the scan system of the fire control tracking function for that, the threat analysis grid listed on starfighter equipment at wookieepedia. Different modes for different purposes, forced by game mechanics not just player choice.
It does kind of work that way. In tracking mode the Foxhound can see everything at close range around itself. In search mode it has blind spots immediately behind the engines and things like that, where the extended range sensor antennae can't point directly or have troubles with data processing or return clutter (like interference from your own engines). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Works for me.
I would like to add an additional step to the sensor range brackets you suggest. Maybe conversion ratios something along the lines of Min-x.2/x.5/x1/x2, where Min = the minimum sensor range you suggested. The next question is what rate the difficulty would increase as range increases.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | That's true, it would keep the total numbers down a bit as well, which is good when you're essentially operating in a game with a 1-31 difficulty scale. I'd go with that instead. |
The flipside of applying Scale modifiers in this situation, IMO, is that there shouldn't be negative penalties applied to CS-scale sensor systems when detecting SF-scale ships.
EDIT: In fact, its debatable whether scale should be a factor at all. A starfighter will be a smaller object to detect, but will also have lower power output and relatively tiny sensor systems, whereas a capital ship will be much more detectable in terms of sensor signature, but will also have much larger and more powerful sensor to detect with.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as Focus, I like the idea of it being more versatile, so that the sensor operator can choose between the following:
1). As per the RAW, it can scan a sphere with the diameter of the listed Space units.
2). It can also focus on multiple independent targets simultaneously, up to the range number listed
3). It can focus exclusively on one target, with an additional 1D of Sensor dice for every D of Focus bonus.
4). Can mix and match between 2 and 3, scanning multiple targets with stacking bonuses.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm for NOT having sensors scale. If starfighters can detect each other then big ships, with more powerful sensor arrays should be able to detect starfighters too. Any "scaling" can be handled by the sensor signature rating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any scaling is only for improvement. My suggestion wasn't meant to reflect some sort of hindrance for a capital ship detecting starfighters. Just made sense to me that large objects would be able to be detected easier.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Focus is an interesting element. It does have real world analogue, with nomenclature changes.
On a conventional microwave pulse/doppler multimode radar set...
Scan would be tracking mode (track-while-scan or TWS).
Search is search mode (variable pulse repetition and pilot controlled signal shape to extend detection range).
Focus would be STT mode or single target track, which gives much more comprehensive target information including relative vector, true speed, differential altitude, etc.
Thing is...STT can track multiple targets...
But only on one search facing to the limit of signal range. It's very analoguous to the Sensors Focus mode.
The main difference is that Focus/STT has a number of targets limited by the processing ability of the set. So an Eagle can track 4 this way, a MiG-29C, Hornet or something like that can track 2, a Tomcat can track 6, etc. (older birds like Phantoms, when this mode was invented could only track 1 this way).
But in TWS mode you can track like 10 or 12 targets no problem, all around you. You just don't have anywhere near the detail of HUD information on them. You can fire on them if you want, but results are less predictive and you have problems with SARH, best to use active seekers like AMRAAMs or heatseekers that can pit bull.
So I like your thinking on multiple targets crmcneill for focus, a number equal to the range in space units for Focus listed, ie. with Focus 2/3D you can lock up and get detailed information on 2 targets simultaneously, within your scan range. With Focus 4/4D you can lock up 4 targets...
You should also rule that the target gets sensor warning alarms that are identical to a weapons fire. This type of sensor mode is the one that is used by the weapons fire control system, the frequency and pulse repetition is identical to a weapons launch so the RWR alarms go off saying a missile has been launched, IRL that's what happens. Even if you haven't launched a missile, that's just the radar mode.
So you can add the dimension of using the Focus feature to bug out enemy starfighters  eg. you have two players in opposing ships, one says, I use my sensors focus on the starship I just detected, so the GM says to the other player (in the starship he detected), dude, you're getting fired upon!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | Focus is an interesting element. It does have real world analogue, with nomenclature changes. |
Don't forget the mythical zoom lens! 
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | Any scaling is only for improvement. My suggestion wasn't meant to reflect some sort of hindrance for a capital ship detecting starfighters. Just made sense to me that large objects would be able to be detected easier. |
Good point. So rather than using the RAW scale rules, just apply a one-time modifier based on the ship's scale when generating the sensor signature?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, which is why I thought the multipliers would be easy. But we could use scale rules in a positive bonus, not hindrance. I think maybe +1 per 2D of scale if we're doing it this way. That way Starfighters are a +3 and Capital scale ships are a +6, while Deathstar scale is a +12. This could also be applied for for speeder and walker, giving +1 for speeders, and +2 for walkers.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
