|
Post by Sliprunner on Jan 30, 2017 17:49:14 GMT -6
Previous First Post As it has been brought up under concern of individuals that a rebalance may not be in the favor of those utilizing E-war, especially as it is of the concern I may not be an unbiased individual in regards to such a change. I am requesting assistance and evaluation from the rest of the community to weigh in on the more critical part of this potential rebalance, which would see changes to E-war specifically in terms of being able to counteract it. FIRST NOTE (1/30): CHANGES WILL BE HELD UNTIL AFTER THE ZEALOT CONFLICT, THESE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED PENDING UNTIL SUCH A TIME. SECOND NOTE (1/30): THIS IS INITIAL DRAFT, AS SUCH MANY THINGS ARE UNFINISHED AND REQUIRE ELABORATION. Sensor TypesA crucial part of E-war is that involving the enemy's reception and interpretation of information, this is handled by a combination of their sensor systems and internal electronics respectively. The variety of sensor types in turn must be clarified as to clarify what types of jamming work on what types of systems, it is further important to know the sensor types to enable a ship to be equipped more towards its capabilities. Sensors by type, with the three following ranges specified Detection Range: You are aware of SOMETHING there Identification Range: You can identify what SOMETHING is Targeting Range: You can generate firing solutions on SOMETHING Name | Detection Range
| Identification Range
| Targeting Range
| Electromagnetic | 50,000KM
| 20,000KM
| 9,000KM
| Lidar
| 90,000KM
| 40,000KM
| 15,000KM
| Optical (Advanced)
| 110,000KM
| 55,000KM
| 6,000KM
| Radar | 75,000KM
| 30,000KM
| 12,000KM
| Radiometric (Gamma, Infrared)
|
|
|
| Subspace |
|
|
|
Note: there may be additional types of sensors not covered here 2nd Note: This is HIGHLY subject to change, as values are wildly different from reality (Which would see 5+ light seconds detection range for most GC vessels) 3rd Note: This does NOT effect stellar observations. 4th Note: Additional sensor arrays past the first also improve ranges, adding +50% over base for each additional sensor (EX: 5x sensors = Range * 3) Existing sensors changed from before Optical: Clarified to specifically represent advanced optical tracking systems, normally considered to be 'Light-Spectrum' based. Gravimetric: no longer referenced, only applicable to terrestrial objects as stellar vessels would represent to little mass for its function. Thermal: no longer referenced, is considered a type of Radiometric sensor. When preforming an E-War attack against a target, you must target at least one sensor type the vessel possesses (Radiometric is however 2 separate types). Sensors types beyond those targeted would be unaffected by the jamming attempt, although in cases of 'similar' types, jamming may simply act a reduced effectiveness; However, exception is to be given to subspace, which is effected by all jamming attempts but only at reduced effectiveness. It must be noted that you do not have to target all types of sensors available to your jamming equipment, and may choose to target only specific types at a given time. DP Changes Targeting Systems is replaced by 'Sensor Types', this is specifically in reference to what sensor types a jamming system effects. Per Sensor Type: 5DP Clause: A 'Multi-spectrum' device may be used, this is considered effective against all types but at reduced effectiveness. Multispectrum: 20DP Passive Resistance
The passive resistance of a ship is it's ability to stop attempts to manipulate its sensors, such resistance is based off the relative size of the vessel and the ensuring amount of computation, it is further augmented by AI that may be placed aboard and the overall sophistication of electronics. This can be evaluated using rather simple values, specifically values that are already represented within the system. The Formula is as follows Size + (Tier of Computation - 1) + 1 per AI type researched above Psudo-AI. Size: The size of the vessel according to the DP system, listed under hull types Note: if a CnC or Raider Carrier vessel provides resistance, double the vessels passive resistance. [Subject to change] Active ResistanceThe active resistance of a ship is it's ability to activate countermeasures to electronic attacks, these may be as simple as redundancy systems on the sensor network already installed on a vessel, to additional processing, or even armoring applied to sensors in rare cases. These are your primary counter to electronic warfare, and are inclusive of ECCM (Electronic Counter-Counter Measures). Due to the cost of some of these systems they may not be installed on all vessels, additionally it may be seen that some vessels may not mount active resistance. DP Changes Sensors: [No DP Changes], Adds +1 to resistance if type is targeted, additionally add +0.5 per redundancy on the sensor type. Dedicated AI: 15DP, Adds another AI to the ship, adding +1 per AI type researched above Psudo-AI to a ship's passive resistance. Secondary Processing System: 5DP + 5 per size above corvette. Double ships size for passive resistance, Unique (Only 1 allowed) Defensive Sensor Shroud: 5DP per sensor, applies a +2 bonus per sensor to Dazzling resistance, applies only to Dazzling ECCM Targeting: 3DP per Turret, this does not count against turret max size, allows specific turret to lock on strongest receiving jamming signal, effective against focused jamming only. Integrated PD Targeting: +1DP per PD turret, allows PD turret to continue operation, limits max range to 2,000KM. Jamming StrengthJamming Strength is the ships ability to initiate and continue electronic attacks on other vessels. The varied nature of electronic attacks mean that no one method functions the exact same, as such for simplicity a generic 'jamming strength' shall be used to imply the relative capability of a vessel to initiate E-war activities. While an individual's jamming strength may be mediocre for a situation, additional ships jamming a target can become detrimental. Each ship past the first begins subjecting to diminishing returns, reducing by half for each [EX: 4 Destroyers+Jammer, 1st: 4, 2nd: 2(6 total), 3rd: 1(7 total), 4th: 0.5 (7.5 total)]; However, exceptions are to be noted. Dazzling/Jamming: When two or more vessels target two or more separate sensor types, exclusive to each other, they are not subject to diminishing returns. Spoofing: Each vessel maintains its full effectiveness for self only. CnC Clause: if a CnC ship of E-War type is utilized, it may coordinate the targeting of multiple E-war attacks. This will allow all ships, up to a number equal to the CnC's size, to apply half of their jamming strength together as if a single vessel. The CnC must be able to maintain communication with the attacking vessels to coordinate. The Formula for determining jamming strength is as follows Size + 2 per AI type researched above Psudo-AI + (Dazzling/Jamming/Spoofing, whichever system the vessel is using for the electronic attack, Reduced effectiveness means -25% [EX: 0.75 added per]) When decimals are involved, round decimals to nearest tenth [EX: 1.24 = 1.2, 3.75 = 3.8] Effectiveness of E-War activities is as follows (Defender Resistance - Jamming Strength) = Remainder The remainder from this is used as follows Jamming/Distortion: (Defender Resistance / Remainder) = % of remaining sensor range [Only of sensor types effected] Spoofing: Remainder < 0 = Sensor ghosts up to number, incorrect identification. Remainder > 0 = % of ship identification incorrect (Additional/missing turrets, unknown sensor types, Etc) Dazzling: Remainder < 0 = Sensors disabled until repaired. Remainder > 0 = Sensors operate at reduced effectiveness until repaired. The difference between Jamming and Distortion is as follows Jamming (RW: Directional) : Is focused upon a specific target, within 'identification' range of the sensor type targeted, with intent to prevent sensor operation. Only effects target vessel, nearby vessels are uneffected. Distortion (RW: Omni Directional) : Is broadcast over an area, All ships without Cypher suffer reduced targeting range against vessels inside the defined area. DP Changes Sensor Dazzling: 15DP, effective against realspace sensors (No separate targeting system required now) Sensor Spoofing: No Change Communication Jamming: 15DP, add +5DP for subspace (No separate targeting system required now) Sensor Jamming: 30DP (Requires sensor types specified, see 'Sensor Types') Sensor Distortion: 30DP (Requires sensor types specified, see 'Sensor Types'; Has a base area of 100km) Sensor Distortion Subcost: 30DP per 100KM area effected After having talked some with other members, and taking time to evaluate options. These seem to be the following 'low impact' resolutions, in the form of special rules for Electronic Warfare (Suggested by another member): Jammer systems have limited endurance, They are only capable of jamming a target for a measure of time before the target is capable of filtering out the Jamming OR Jammer systems function the same as disruption systems, and thus only have limited operation time before being overheated/overloaded/some other issue. | Game Impact: Jammer systems lose effectiveness over time, making them viable for short bursts of jamming activity similar to sensor disruption. No changes done elsewise. (Prior Suggestion): Jammers can effect all participants friend or foe, this is from the fact the 'Signal-To-Noise' ratio is brought so high no one can filter out useful information. This specifically means that multiple ships actively engaging in E-warfare will blind each other, requiring other forces to act to break the exchange. | Game Impact: You Spam jammers, you jam yourself, meaning you have to use additional ships not involved in electronic warfare to fight. (Prior Suggestion): Diminishing Returns on sensor jamming, the jammer systems can only overlap but so much. Applying huge volumes of jammer systems is in efficient, and renders each individual jammer less effective, this comes from the fact that 20 systems all putting out the same signal won't make a stronger signal, just a larger area covered. | Game Impact: Trying to use large numbers of jammers results in the jammers themselves becoming in effective, resulting in a rapid curve where more dedicated electronic warfare boats are required. Additional (But high impact) resolutions are as follows (Suggested by another member): Jammer systems are complex, They can only be mounted on E-warfare vessels to the exclusion of other vessels. This means that under normal circumstances the average warship can't launch a sensor jamming attack. Game Impact: All jammer systems on non-E-war boats must be removed, Jammer systems are only available on E-war boats. (Modified Suggestion): Jammer systems are focused types, Jammer systems MUST be marked for specific types of Sensor systems, multi spectrum isn't an option except in specific cases. This means that Jammer systems can't be as broad use, but are specifically more tailored towards stopping specific types of scanning. Game Impact: All Jammer systems must be redefined to specific types, types of jammers must further be specified, and multispectrum options are limited to special case. (Admin Option): Invoke Rule 8, removal of the technology drastically effecting balance. This is the simplest solution as it removes the problem until such a time that a more balanced solution to its implementation can be found. Game Impact: All jammer systems must be removed, the technology is rendered innert, or otherwise incapable of functioning. These are some of the options available for resolving this. As the horra battle itself is drawing to a full close, resolution to the E-war system must be determined. Additional suggestions for resolutions are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Chonicler on Feb 1, 2017 16:07:09 GMT -6
I do like the idea of reworking the E-War system, ATM it's rather broken in that a fleet can have a large percentage be just EWar ships and completely steamroll the enemy fleet which is unable to do anything about it, and there are almost no practical countermeasures. One concern, however, is that the proposed system is going to require a HUGE amount of extra analysis of battles involving E-War (especially for those using it), looking back at the proposed Command Capacity addition, it was a good idea, but impractical to add without making the RP too complicated. It is a good idea, and we definitely need it, we just have to keep in mind the problem of making it overly complicated.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Feb 1, 2017 16:55:08 GMT -6
I do like the idea of reworking the E-War system, ATM it's rather broken in that a fleet can have a large percentage be just EWar ships and completely steamroll the enemy fleet which is unable to do anything about it, and there are almost no practical countermeasures. One concern, however, is that the proposed system is going to require a HUGE amount of extra analysis of battles involving E-War (especially for those using it), looking back at the proposed Command Capacity addition, it was a good idea, but impractical to add without making the RP too complicated. It is a good idea, and we definitely need it, we just have to keep in mind the problem of making it overly complicated. I can rather agree that the proposal thus far would add a bit to much math, and I would rather like to remove the math if at all possible. The present issue is for the most part jamming/disruption itself, and handling them specifically. Jamming becomes broken when large numbers of craft can completely shut down fleets with no recourse available, short of simply crawling every fleet with sensors, where as disruption is in its own way somewhat vague in effect, specifically in regards to how to counter it's usage, other then simply firing loads of munitions. I am more then open to suggestions if you have any on what to do, this isn't something I'm to keen on doing alone.
|
|
|
Post by RedDwarfIV on Feb 1, 2017 17:45:49 GMT -6
My intention for Realspace E-WAR when making it was that each type was going to have different roles and specific functions, and that dazzling, spoofing and jamming (now disruption) would have functions different to their Subspace counterparts.
Dazzling: Individual sensor killing. Spoofing: Misleading the enemy. Disruption: Hiding in plain sight.
Each of these would have advantages and limitations to remain balanced.
Dazzling: Permenantly destroying sensors, but with a hit/miss-rate similar to main weapons (Thus preventing an immediate sensor blindness issue, and providing a counter in maneuvering.) Spoofing: Allows the user to fake the activation of systems, or pretend they have more weapons/operational systems than they actually do. May also be used to pretend a spacecraft has its guard up even when it does not to dissuade sneak attacks. It is a passive rather than active system, so has no need to affect the enemy's sensors directly. However, this system is energy intensive, expensive to mount, and is entirely reliant on the enemy taking what they see at face value. Disruption: Prevents the enemy from seeing how many, the type and what it mounted to your vessels, giving a tactical advantage. On the other hand, it lights up your position in a way the enemy cannot ignore (a strategic disadvantage), it is a very expensive system that tends to require dedicated vessels to mount, and its temporary nature means the advantage won't last long - any operation depending on it is time-limited.
I put a lot of thought into making sure these were balanced, and would not break GC's mechanics. This is why I am reluctant to change them based on what someone else thought they were supposed to mean, especially since GC already has means in place to add technologies that you want to see implemented.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Feb 1, 2017 23:32:21 GMT -6
My intention for Realspace E-WAR when making it was that each type was going to have different roles and specific functions, and that dazzling, spoofing and jamming (now disruption) would have functions different to their Subspace counterparts. Dazzling: Individual sensor killing. Spoofing: Misleading the enemy. Disruption: Hiding in plain sight. Each of these would have advantages and limitations to remain balanced. Dazzling: Permenantly destroying sensors, but with a hit/miss-rate similar to main weapons (Thus preventing an immediate sensor blindness issue, and providing a counter in maneuvering.) Spoofing: Allows the user to fake the activation of systems, or pretend they have more weapons/operational systems than they actually do. May also be used to pretend a spacecraft has its guard up even when it does not to dissuade sneak attacks. It is a passive rather than active system, so has no need to affect the enemy's sensors directly. However, this system is energy intensive, expensive to mount, and is entirely reliant on the enemy taking what they see at face value. Disruption: Prevents the enemy from seeing how many, the type and what it mounted to your vessels, giving a tactical advantage. On the other hand, it lights up your position in a way the enemy cannot ignore (a strategic disadvantage), it is a very expensive system that tends to require dedicated vessels to mount, and its temporary nature means the advantage won't last long - any operation depending on it is time-limited. I put a lot of thought into making sure these were balanced, and would not break GC's mechanics. This is why I am reluctant to change them based on what someone else thought they were supposed to mean, especially since GC already has means in place to add technologies that you want to see implemented. So taking time to evaluate things, it would seem that most forms of E-War are preforming mostly in their intended role (Dazzling may be problematic, but it has not proven such yet), and given prior comments from Chon, it does seem in interested to not undergo a complete re-balance, and specifically kept arbitrary without math, with exception perhaps in DP cost; however, it does show to me from both of you commenting, that Jamming as is needs adjusted in some form. The only things I have under suggestion right now are as follows. 1st: ECCM equipment It is possible to include ECCM equipment using modern era techniques, for a targeting system to actively home in on a jamming signal. Specifically this would mean a small piece of equipment you would likely mount to a turret as I had already listed, which would allow a vessel being jammed to utilize equipped turrets against a target. Such ECCM 'radiation homing' is even made use of in missiles, suggesting possibly allowing an update for missile weapons to home in on a jamming vessel. The largest problem of this is that it introduces a hard counter, one that would have to actively be mounted on ships, and creating another DP tax like there is presently with point defense (Seeing the ever growing amount of PD mounted on vessels). It also does little to nothing to absolve issues as they stand, requiring refits to utilize. It also presents the situation where it is able to completely nullify ECM tactics if used in force. 2nd: Diminishing Returns This has some grounds in reality, specifically in the fact that only so much jammer strength can reliably be pushed across a frequency. What would change is that additional jamming ships would reduce in power until reaching a point where they are no longer effective, this would push for vessels to be equipped for singular E-war duty with heavy amount of jammers. The problem is this is somewhat of an Arbitrary restriction, as there is still methods of frequency rotation to avoid such. While not the most pleasant solution it would shut down 'Fleet of E-war' tactics, and push E-war specifically towards the passive instead of the active. This is the least elegant solution though as it does still result in a rather arbitrary restriction. 3rd: Self Effecting A variation of the above, what this does is when multiple E-war vessels are involved in a jamming effort they begin to effect each other. This specifically means that while you could use a large number of vessels to jam a target, the jamming vessels themselves would become blind. This stems from the jamming vessels creating enough 'noise' (as per what jamming does), that they can't filter it out themselves. This to some degree maintains the current status quo, doing little more then punishing both sides of the jamming fest. In all 3 cases, it could reduce the problem of lacking any reasonable counter towards E-war, unfortunately it does little more then chose who is punished in trying to balance the problem. There is also technically a 4th solution, but is one best avoided at all cost. 4th: Removal of Tech As has happened before, when a tech becomes overpowered beyond recourse of simple balance, it is removed from the game. This has happened to other techs before, and is likely to continue happening. This punishes anyone using the Jamming tech without recourse other then to simply adapt to a new tactic, something best avoided if at all possible.
|
|
|
Post by RedDwarfIV on Feb 2, 2017 0:01:38 GMT -6
3rd: Self Effecting A variation of the above, what this does is when multiple E-war vessels are involved in a jamming effort they begin to effect each other. This specifically means that while you could use a large number of vessels to jam a target, the jamming vessels themselves would become blind. This stems from the jamming vessels creating enough 'noise' (as per what jamming does), that they can't filter it out themselves. This to some degree maintains the current status quo, doing little more then punishing both sides of the jamming fest. I don't think that would maintain the status quo at all. E-WAR Jamming would still be useful, just in more restricted situations. In a fleet action, perhaps it might be counter-productive, but against a smaller enemy force or a single target, it could allow you to jam your opponent without resorting to shipspam - at which point you could destroy or board your enemy with far less resistance. And even in a fleet action, it might be useful as a delaying tactic or to assist other forces even if the jamming vessels get sacrificed in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Feb 2, 2017 14:07:04 GMT -6
3rd: Self Effecting A variation of the above, what this does is when multiple E-war vessels are involved in a jamming effort they begin to effect each other. This specifically means that while you could use a large number of vessels to jam a target, the jamming vessels themselves would become blind. This stems from the jamming vessels creating enough 'noise' (as per what jamming does), that they can't filter it out themselves. This to some degree maintains the current status quo, doing little more then punishing both sides of the jamming fest. I don't think that would maintain the status quo at all. E-WAR Jamming would still be useful, just in more restricted situations. In a fleet action, perhaps it might be counter-productive, but against a smaller enemy force or a single target, it could allow you to jam your opponent without resorting to shipspam - at which point you could destroy or board your enemy with far less resistance. And even in a fleet action, it might be useful as a delaying tactic or to assist other forces even if the jamming vessels get sacrificed in the process. I do rather like the idea that there is some drawback to trying to use multiple vessels in jamming, but I am rather unsure how the 'self effecting' could even be properly worded. Especially considering the apparent difficulty people have in understanding things I write, and the fact that despite the math offered in the first post, I would rather NOT include additional math for this, we deal with that enough already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 17:11:01 GMT -6
.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 16:40:05 GMT -6
.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Feb 8, 2017 19:07:59 GMT -6
Since you want to view it in those regards, I will actually respond in those regards. - While reactors do not change in capabilities based on ship size, you change in the amount you can mount. A subcapital and a capital would in most cases mount notably different amounts of power, it is not a fixed capability that is unified across all hulls, some ships may have just one or two reactors while others might even have six.
- Shield arrays/emitters fall into the catch where the costs of them can make it prohibitive to mount a large number. This is a cost that larger ships, which have more DP, can eat when smaller vessels can not. While the performance specifically doesn't change the overall capability changes by the volume you have.
- Sensors are a grey area, in some ways they can be better on a larger ship, in others they can be worse. The reasoning behind this is the sensors are just that, systems to receive information about the surroundings. I could have a large volume of sensors giving me plenty of data, it matters little if the ships computer systems can do nothing with it. While the same as the above two applies where more points can mean more equipment, a secondary effect can be applied from simply having better computers on hand.
To elaborate on the last, and why it's the one most relevant to the understanding of how size factors in, you must understand simply that computers and indeed computer mainframes even if only increasing in complexity often increase in size. When you are comparing the fire control systems of a Destroyer class vessel, it rather obviously doesn't need to be as extensive as the systems present on a battleship, it's both a waste of space and effort as such systems provide no benefit. When you bring in larger vessels though you also carry more and often heavier firepower, this requires better fire direction then a destroyer vessel. While a destroyer might be aligning a dozen or so turrets, a battle cruiser could easily need to direct banks of turrets. In addition the size of the battlecruiser would infer a more capable fire control system could even be mounted without detracting space from vital equipment.
So while reactors, and shields, or even sensors to some extent are something that it's rather simple to just mount more of, they are not the same equivalence of the precious electronic components controlling them. Computers and Electronics in general though, are something that can be both space and resource intensive to include. While these are not something rendered in cost, as they are a base integral part of a ship required for its operation, something that can in various was be skirted for the others, they are something that easily evolves with the ship. The structural integrity of a corvette and a cruiser would not be assumed to be the same, even though there is no tangible hard cost to why they should be different (bar armoring of course).
In regards to other areas of Science Fiction though, we reach a different problem. The problem being that Electronic Warfare, if present, is usually considered either a passive or an active defense. Even in real world applications we can see this where jamming systems are used mostly in the defensive role, preventing the enemy from being aware of the position of equipment. In these situations though Jammers as we have, an active focused target system, are often counteracted in rather simple ways. From reality we have, as a list.
- Radiation Homing, this is a technology that is actually little more then a sensor system of its own. By using the emissions of a jammer it homes in, used on a number of missiles to completely counteract jamming attempts, as the stronger the jammer is the more of a beacon it presents to the homing system. There is no counter to it other then providing another direction/source of jamming larger then the first.
- Polarization, simply changing polarization of RADAR systems is a surprisingly effective way to counteract jamming. So long as jammer and RADAR are on different polarizations, the jamming is of a reduced effect. Paired with two arrays on opposite polarizations it's possible to filter out most jamming, the only viable counter being to generate such a strong jamming signal that nothing can be observed. It only helps that 'Reverse The Polarity' is a buzz word for science-fiction.
- Frequency Hopping, similar to the above it simply changes frequencies until such a point that the jammer must either spread it's strength across all frequencies, reducing it's capabilities to do so, or be rendered ineffective against the radar system. This is something common enough that it's an integrated feature to more modern radar systems. This results in having to either have multiple jammers across all frequencies, or a single very powerful jammer system.
- Computer assisted filtering, this is the key one in regards to GC as a whole. With more modern systems we've gained better capability to filter out the noise created by jammers, to such an extent that an experienced operator with aid of good electronics can still identify targets through the jamming noise. With the comparison of Computers from GC, especially with the assistance of AI (who with the aforementioned computers, would operate faster than a normal operator), would result in ships having remarkable resistance on their own from simply being well equipped.
- Sensor Design, In science-fiction and even in reality, advanced sensor designs have always been a staple. Being able to quickly spot and identify a target through various conditions is a vital importance, such that many sensors are designed specifically to counteract disruptive noise generated by jammers. The simplest of these being higher resolution sensors forcing the adaption of more capable jammers, resulting in an arms race between the ability of a sensor system to pick out the fine details, and ECM's ability to obscure those details. While not directly an effect on jamming and sensors, it does promote the concept of including more developed technology in the future.
In addition to the above, we can look more into how the jamming systems work, the foremost of this being that it is often a two way street. Targeting is rarely refined such to be focused on a single target, instead coming as a cone system, and further more usually works off generating enough noise across the spectrum's the sensors use as to make them unable to identify targets; However, following logic such as that suggests sensors such as Optical or Thermal to be immune to jamming in that sense and thus will be ignored. What we do get is that because jamming is a cone, and is not inherently 'friend or foe', we can infer that jamming fields will often effect the user as well. As such the following can be determined from the above arguments.
- ECCM: Be it from some method to avert the jamming techniques, should be included. Both reality, and some sources of Sci-fi, both soft and hard, promote that such equipment should exist and remain effective.
- No Friend or Foe: While it is of no obvious statement that the 'attacker' would be able to filter out some of his own jamming, there is strong basis in both a balance, and realistic sense, for extensive jamming to effect the attacker as well.
- Size Matters: Even if it would require an inclusion of a DP cost, the electronic capabilities of a vessel due to its inherent size, should be reflected.
While specifics would still need to be worked out, the above three points seem to be the more sane and respectable options. While this may have repercussions in reduced effectiveness of jammer systems, it is for the sake of both balance, sanity, and realism that changes such as these, or similar should take place at some point.
I would be interested in hearing more from people on how to refine such a concept, as this is something to effect the community even if they do not use jamming systems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 20:03:04 GMT -6
You don't seem to grasp what I am pointing out. You just pointed out the same flaw I am. There is no difference between a reactor mounted on a small hull and a reactor mounted on a large hull. They both put out the same amount of power if they are the same size reactor. The only difference between the capabilities of power generation if the amount of room available on the ship. This room/space is represented by the amount of design points the hull has. A larger, more efficiently laid out hull will allow you to mount more reactors. Nothing changes in the effectiveness of each individual reactor and nothing changes about the over all cost of each reactor in variance to different sizes of hull.
The scaling cost is moot. Scaling cost in this regard is meant to represent the space needed for the equipment and the supporting systems. Again you spend design points to put more shield arrays/emitters on a vessel. The only thing that limits the amount of shields on one vessel when compared to another is the amount of design points you have to allocate. A person mounting as many shields on a cruiser as you have on a battleship and matching your reactor count and sizes with the same technological level would see no difference between what the cruiser could take against its shields and what the battleship could take against its shields. As long as said count did not extend into the cruiser's soft/hard cap limit then there would be no added costs for the cruiser as far as raw design points. Thus it is stated again that there is no difference between a shield emitter or array mounted on a battleship and one that is mounted on a smaller vessel.
There is no design point cost for the supporting systems you are describing. Such design point cost is then inherent in the cost of the sensor itself which scales the more you put on the vessel. So to answer your question: No. Just because you have a battleship does not mean you have bigger and better computers on-board. Such expenditure is inherent in the cost of the sensor which you spend design points for. The more design points you spend on a particular system the more 'room' you are allocating on-board that vessel to that particular piece of equipment or system. Just because you have a larger design point pool would not grant anyone a bonus. You need to install systems and equipment on the hull so they can be used. If you don't install them you can't just say that a bigger ship grants you a bonus.
Without a design point cost equates directly with space available on a vessel and the efficiency that space is used. To answer this block I will again say 'no'. You don't get free equipment just because you have a bigger hull. You need to install said equipment within the hull and spend design points. Systems such as sensors have a scaling cost to represent this already.
I do not agree with you. The structural integrity of a corvette and a cruiser are not the same. This is obvious in the ship's built point cost. This is also counter acted by being larger targets in a battle. Using this as a counter argument is #$_#*@. Electronics and computers is something you install after the frame of a vessel, its super structure has been assembled. You don't put the wiring or plumbing of a house in until you have the house's frame up. You may rough in holes for wiring and pipes but you do not install the toilet before you frame up the house. So again I will say, 'No. Just because it is a bigger ship it does not have better or more computers. You must allocate space for targeting and computation in the form of design points though cost in the actual system you are installing. The more sensors you mount the higher the cost of said sensors because you need computing power.
We have not moved on to this yet. You still have't addressed the first issue besides saying, 'Larger ships are better equipped to deal EWAR because they are larger even though there need not be any design point allocation cost for being better at it.' It is the equivalent of saying they are better because I said they are better. Let me put it like this:
If you want to be able to use a tool in a fight you need to bring the tool to the fight. If you did not bring it to the fight you can not use it.
Size Matters: Even if it would require an inclusion of a DP cost, the electronic capabilities of a vessel due to its inherent size, should be reflected.[/quote]
That is what she said. 'No.' Bigger is not necessarily better. A destroyer is naturally better at killing submarines than most other vessels because it is equipped for the task. Again: Design points reflect the amount of space you have to fit equipment in and on a vessel. Bigger and more efficiently made ships have higher soft-caps, hard-caps, build times, and design points. They don't automatically get to be better because they are bigger they just have more room for more equipment and thus can specialize more and harder or go jack of all trades harder.
I am trying to refine such a concept. I expected a real reason why you think larger ships get a bonus above and beyond their higher soft-caps, hard-caps, design points values outside of 'they are bigger so they are better.' I expect other people to chime in on my original query.
So it must be asked. Is a piece of equipment mounted on a larger ship more powerful simply because it is mounted on the larger ship?
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Feb 8, 2017 20:45:51 GMT -6
If you want a direct answer, then I shall grant you one, and the answer is "Yes", and I shall elaborate why.
You are directly comparing Electronics, a reserve system, to Shields, Reactors, and Sensors. The better comparison is in regards to Crew, Structual Integrity, and Automation, Key factors that can directly be compared.
Crew represents the capabilities of a vessel, without a crew a vessel must either by completely automated, or is rendered unable to act in most manners. A crew of a ship has no tangible cost to it, it is considered inherent to the ship. Yet does a larger crew not require more space? Does a larger ship not require more crew? A computer system equipped for a vessel must be able to cope with what vessel it is equipped to. Where a Corvette might only need a bridge as a control point, a cruiser could require men in various stations across the ship for operations, and those men in turn need officers to direct their effects, who in turn are directed by the command crew of the bridge. A Computer system would be in similar regards, a corvette might need only a single main computer installed in that bridge, but the vast engineering section of a dreadnought would likely need it's own main computer just for localized control of systems.
Structural integrity represents the durability of a vessel, from a frigate which might just be built around a central keel, to a Battlecruiser that might require a multisection reinforcement to handle the stress of FTL travel. It is something that has again no cost inherent to it, but is one that is completely based off the size of a vessel. The electronics of a ship in turn are scaled to the vessel, where you might be able to get by with simple straight runs on a destroyer, with a handful of nodes to branch the network, larger ships would require a larger more complicated system. An electrical system itself often requires fuses to branch apart, to avoid putting to much strain on any single area. A electronic network would be similar, with in the case of control networks, requiring some level of redundancy to reduce the effects of battle damage, or even just equipment breaking down.
Automation represents the complexity of vessels, Automation of a strikecraft in its own requires only replacing a single pilot at times, yet larger ships could see the need to replace hundreds of men at once. Having no cost inherent to itself, automation is still a much needed relief from the burden of crew requirements. The systems needed to handle the operations of a turret of only 60cm compared to the operation of a turret of 120cm are different in their own ways, this simply due to the scale of operation as not all equipment scales equally, something any good engineer can tell you in a heartbeat. The moment you begin increasing the scale of equipment is the moment things begin becoming more complex, you can't simply use a motor for a 20 ton load for a crane meant to handle 80 tons. As the Automation changes based on the size of the vessel, the same can be said of the electronic system. A computer might start as a simple 'super computer' spread across the ship on smaller vessels, but a larger capital ship could easily require its own networking just for its control systems.
When you compare electronics to those, instead of shields, reactors, and sensors, the relation is much clearer on why it would change due to relative scale.
Would you in turn imply that the crew of a Frigate is the same size and capabilities as a crew of a battleship? Or would the two crews function on different scales?
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Mar 13, 2017 18:42:26 GMT -6
After having talked some with other members, and taking time to evaluate options. These seem to be the following 'low impact' resolutions, in the form of special rules for Electronic Warfare - (Suggested by another member): Jammer systems have limited endurance, They are only capable of jamming a target for a measure of time before the target is capable of filtering out the Jamming OR Jammer systems function the same as disruption systems, and thus only have limited operation time before being overheated/overloaded/some other issue. | Game Impact: Jammer systems lose effectiveness over time, making them viable for short bursts of jamming activity similar to sensor disruption. No changes done elsewise.
- (Prior Suggestion): Jammers can effect all participants friend or foe, this is from the fact the 'Signal-To-Noise' ratio is brought so high no one can filter out useful information. This specifically means that multiple ships actively engaging in E-warfare will blind each other, requiring other forces to act to break the exchange. | Game Impact: You Spam jammers, you jam yourself, meaning you have to use additional ships not involved in electronic warfare to fight.
- (Prior Suggestion): Diminishing Returns on sensor jamming, the jammer systems can only overlap but so much. Applying huge volumes of jammer systems is in efficient, and renders each individual jammer less effective, this comes from the fact that 20 systems all putting out the same signal won't make a stronger signal, just a larger area covered. | Game Impact: Trying to use large numbers of jammers results in the jammers themselves becoming in effective, resulting in a rapid curve where more dedicated electronic warfare boats are required.
Additional (But high impact) resolutions are as follows - (Suggested by another member): Jammer systems are complex, They can only be mounted on E-warfare vessels to the exclusion of other vessels. This means that under normal circumstances the average warship can't launch a sensor jamming attack. Game Impact: All jammer systems on non-E-war boats must be removed, Jammer systems are only available on E-war boats.
- (Modified Suggestion): Jammer systems are focused types, Jammer systems MUST be marked for specific types of Sensor systems, multi spectrum isn't an option except in specific cases. This means that Jammer systems can't be as broad use, but are specifically more tailored towards stopping specific types of scanning. Game Impact: All Jammer systems must be redefined to specific types, types of jammers must further be specified, and multispectrum options are limited to special case.
- (Admin Option): Invoke Rule 8, removal of the technology drastically effecting balance. This is the simplest solution as it removes the problem until such a time that a more balanced solution to its implementation can be found. Game Impact: All jammer systems must be removed, the technology is rendered innert, or otherwise incapable of functioning.
These are some of the options available for resolving this. As the horra battle itself is drawing to a full close, resolution to the E-war system must be determined. Additional suggestions for resolutions are welcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 5:21:30 GMT -6
I say to myself, 'Caliburn. You like science fiction. You've worked so hard on your creation, its history, and its lore. Do you not want to continue writing on Galactic Conquest?' I answer, 'Some days. Some days I even manage to sign in. When I do I see shit that just makes me want to sign back out.'
Does any weapon system currently implemented in galactic conquest loose effectiveness over time? No.
When you spam battleships, cruisers, or any other type of ship or system does it lower its effectiveness? No. More is always better, more missiles, more lasers, more shields, more ships, more is never worse. More is always better.
See above.
You would need to increase the impact and strength of the system substantially to make it worth the cost to deploy electronic warfare boats.
This involves pigeonholing and creating further systems and guidelines for sensors. In the end it will not achieve your desired result as enemies will fit for the enemy they fight still resulting in calls of misuse and a plea for the systems to be reviewed.
Out of every single one of these this is the most badly thought out solution and the only one I would even consider. Consider it, mind you only if all electronic warfare was removed and only if the research slots were refunded.
You want my solution? Fine. I'll give you my solution. A solution I already turned over to Slip. A solution he somehow decided not to include in detail. I don't even know why I'm posting the solution. I expect it to be shot down which is why I have yet to post it. When it is shot down I don't expect I will return. One less writer for the forum. What a shame...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 5:58:10 GMT -6
Post by Caliburn on 17 hours ago The Electronic Warfare System i.imgur.com/aeKz9Kd.pngSummation (ONE SYSTEM TO RULE THEM ALL) It will not be hard to determine how I came up with such a system. I devised the system a couple of weeks ago in answer to the insistent fuss. I have an idea who started the fuss. I won't name any names. There are other reasons why I had yet to post the system. This system works for all types of electronic warfare with minimum alteration to the base system. Each independent vessel, like a creature in magic the gathering is assigned two numbers. These numbers are signal strength and sensor hardness, attack and defense, strength and life points. You can call the two values anything you want in the end. One determines the vessels ability to use fitted electronic warfare against an enemy. The other determines the ability of the vessel to resist should it come under attack by electronic warfare. The system works for all types of electronic warfare. There is no need to change anything else about the system though a number of things can be added to reward diversity in a fleet. There is no need to do anything else that has been outlined in the post above this one. The system stands on its own. I've tested many scenarios. I would be happy to join you in any test you can devise. Contact me privately and we will work through scenarios to your heart's content. Given that we now have a discord server we can even add a system modifier for random chance. Larger Ships & Roles Larger ships are more adept at utilizing electronic warfare they have fit and defending against electronic warfare. They have more space for electronics. Templates, ships with designated roles are either less or more adept at using electronic warfare or/and defending against it. Battleships are better at it than frigates and a freighter battleship have less ability than a electronic warfare battleship. That is the way of it and the world at large. The first step to determine what a particular ship's signal strength and sensor hardness is will be finding out the class size of the vessel. The next step is finding out the template type of the vessel. This will determine the ship's base signal strength and sensor hardness before sensor modifiers are tacked on. Ship Size Base (A) Corvette .5 Frigate 1 Destroyer 2 Cruiser 3 Battlecruiser 4 Battleship 5 Template Modifier (B) Special None 1 None Arsenal Ship .75 None Assault .75 None Carrier 1 None Civilian .5 None Colonizer .5 None Command and Control [Electronic Warfare Variant] 4 May provide remote assistance to a number of other vessels equal to this vessel's size (Base). May provide those vessels either a boost to their sensor hardness or signal strength equal to this vessel's corresponding statistic. This persists even if this ship is effected by electronic warfare but it is difficult and time consuming to change the recipients of this assistance. Command and Control [Fire Control Variant] 1/5 May provide sensor data allowing a number of other vessels twice as many as this vessel's size (Base) to operate normally even if effected by electronic warfare. This does not persists if this ship is effected by electronic warfare. It is difficult and time consuming to change the recipients of this assistance. Constructor .5 None Demilitarized 1 None Electronic Warfare Frame 3/2 May provide remote assistance to a number of other vessels equal to this vessel's size (Base). May provide those vessels a boost to their signal strength equal to this vessel's signal strength. This persists even if this ship is effected by electronic warfare but it is difficult and time consuming to change the recipients of this assistance. Freighter .5 None FTL Interdictor 1 None Grand Warship 2 None Jump Carrier 1 None Mining Barge .5 None Mobile Shipyard [Drydock Variant] .5 None Mobile Shipyard [Fabricator Variant] .5 None Raider Carrier 1 May provide remote assistance to all daughter craft. May provide the addition of its own sensor hardness to all daughter craft. This persists even if this ship is effected by electronic warfare. Siege Ship .75 None Special Systems 2/3 May provide remote assistance to a number of other vessels equal to this vessel's size (Base). May provide those vessels a boost to their sensor hardness. This persists even if the ship is effected by electronic warfare but it is difficult and time consuming to change the recipients of this assistance. Stealth 3 None Defense Platform 1 None Defensive Platform [Arsenal Variant] .75 None Defensive Platform [Counter Siege Variant] .75 None Defensive Platform [Hanger Variant] 1 None Defensive Platform [Stealth Variant] 3 None Heavy Defensive Platform .75 None Prototype .75 None Monitor .75 None Cutter 1 None Hunter-Killer 2 None Area Defense 1 (3) The point defenses and field projection equipment of this vessel are considered to have a modifier of three (Modifier, B = 3) for the purpose of their use. PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH Numbers are subject to change. There is currently no immunity within this system. There should not be immunity. The Importance of Sensors and Redundancy Sensors and sensor redundancy provide added sensor hardness that will protect your ship from electronic warfare of all kinds. The cost of sensors scales and the benefit of more sensors scales with them. The design point cost of sensors scales at the previous cost plus one. Two sensor arrays costs nine design points. Sensor arrays provide one additional hardness and this bonus scales by the previous bonus plus one for each additional array mounted. Two sensor arrays would provide a bonus of three to a vessel's sensor hardness. Sensor redundancy provides a flat half point of sensor hardness per redundancy but provides some insurance against sensor dazzlers. These are factored in separately for both FLT and normal light-speed sensors. Normal light-speed sensors are the ones used for targeting other ships in combat. More FTL sensors can be beneficial for use in detecting ships that would use FTL electronic warfare to thwart their detection or the accuracy of such detection. Number of Sensors Sensor Hardness Bonus (C) 1 1 2 3 3 6 4 10 5 15 Signal Boosters This would be a section to add modifiers to a ship's signal strength at the cost of design points. If such a system were implemented it would replace the base targeting system cost for all electronic warfare and increase the statistic similar to how sensors increase sensor hardness. For now this idea has been put on hold to flush out the rest of the system. Random Chance Since we have discord we have the possibility of using a dice modifier to put in some random luck or lack of it. i.imgur.com/8qCllHE.pngThe Formula A * B = Signal Strength A * B + C = Sensor Hardness The above example put into card form for your viewing pleasure is the end result of the system. The Peacemaker Mk4 is a standard Ith frigate. Being that it is a frigate its size (Base) gives it a initial value of one. (A=1) It has no template. (B=1) The end result means that it has a signal strength of one, ignoring that it is still paying for a targeting system that I hope will be phased out in favor of a signal booster system. A similar formula is used to determine its sensor hardness. It has one sensor array. (A=1, B=1, C=1) Do you see what this means? Most ships can not get by without sensors. This means that two ships of similar size and template will always be unable to effect ships of similar size and template with electronic warfare. Their defenses will always be more than their attack. The Contest & Conclusion No need to add a bunch of different sensor types and ranges. No need to scrap the system. There is no penalty to stacking electronic warfare and no need to add one. No more using other ships that are not effected by the electronic warfare to bypass it in a way to render it moot. That is what special ships are for. Use them. Invest in them and diversify your fleet. Reward yourself for the use of more sensors. If you invest the design points you have the equipment. It will serve you as well as it can in a fight. It is a simple contest. A tie will always go to the defender but a note should be made in the role-play that various electronic interference is just barely overcome. "She is just holding together captain!" When there is a contest of lock time when both sides are given no other advantages, the smaller a ship is the faster its lock speed. This means that in a contest between a frigate and a battleship, the frigate will get the first opportunity as it has a faster locking speed. It will thus get the chance to use its electronic warfare first. Role-play is diverse and thus there are many reasons why the situation could be flipped. A simple example: *1 VS *10 The above situation is a very simplified version of what could happen in an encounter. A battleship has stumbled upon ten Ith frigates of the Peacemaker Mk4 variety. In an attempt to neutralize the threat the frigates try and use their jamming equipment to neutralize the attacking battleship. The frigates have the faster lock speed so they have the first opportunity. The battleship has just three sensor arrays but thwarts the jamming attempts of the frigates, allowing it to maintain its targeting. The battle starts in earnest. Ith Frigates (Attacking 1*10 = 10) < (Battleship Defending 11) Try it out yourself. Make all kinds of ships with various templates. See how it changes the numbers up.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Mar 14, 2017 10:35:20 GMT -6
Weapon systems are a marvelous invention, You have missiles that use engines to propel warheads at velocity, sometimes even armored against point defense fire. You have Railguns using magnetic acceleration rails to launch mass projectiles at velocity towards a target, you even have lasers using vast amounts of energy in a directed emission to burn through hulls. Then you have Jammers, a simple piece of electronics, that's only duty is to jam the sensors of a target. One of these is not like the others, unfortunately some people frequently mistake it as a weapon system when it is indeed, still a piece of electronics.
Yes, more missiles, Lasers, Shields, even more ships! More is always better! hence why we put 20 routers next to each other all on the same frequency, after all more is better. Unless of course you account reality and of course any sense of balance. Where we have tried to make clear to people to NOT spam ships, and more specifically have taken to at times, punishing people for actively spamming ships. Additionally reality itself dictates that when you have a large amount of transmitters all broadcasting at full strength, across the same frequency spectrum, you create a Signal-To-Noise ratio that prevents anything from working effectively. I too can take selective views of facts.
You haven't proven anything other then stating your opinion that you don't like any of the above solutions, based on completely unrelated facts, that aren't even comparable to the situation at hand.
Is point defense more effective just because it's on an area defense ship? Is sensors more effective just because it's on a special systems ship? Are strikecraft and missiles better because they're on a Carrier or Arsenal ship? No. There is no valid reason why a jammer system, that is presently Unbreakable, unblockable (short of spamming sensors, or being straight up immune), would need it's power increased just because it's locked to a specific template.
So as you are putting it, it would have no resolution on the usage of a jammer system to jam even optical sensors. It would have no effect on a single unit being able to jam every single sensor type for a single low cost. But most importantly apparently this would result in more systems/guidelines, where your own solution would not.
I too can be selective in my reading and chose to ignore entire parts of a sentence, for example I had said 'All Jammer Systems' say it with me 'All Jammer Systems' I did NOT say all electronic warfare systems, Read what I wrote instead of choosing to ignore parts of it, or straight up changing what I said. The statement was again to remove ALL JAMMER SYSTEMS, not all electronic warfare, unless you are saying Dazzling, Spoofing, and Disruption are all called 'Jammer Systems'.
You haven't proven a single thing, all you have proven is that you are valuing your own opinions above all other suggestions or even sense of balance. You are completely ignoring the point of what this is even being discussed, you are selective in your comparisons and using completely irrelevant and often incomparable responses. You are choosing not to provide counter arguments but instead invalidate any arguments brought against you. Something that if you had chosen to actually observe earlier statements, or even talked with other GC members, you would of known that the problem is focused mostly in Jamming technology itself, not the entire E-war system, but jamming specificly. You would of further known that it was made clear by other members, both on this thread, and in GC discussions, that people do NOT want another system of math to resolve the problem.
This must be one of those 'Alternative Facts' I heard about, where the person decides that the facts are completely different to what is actually true. Here let me post a clarification of what was said.
21:21 Caliburn: this is the base system I have explained 21:21 Caliburn: it is simple... 21:21 Caliburn: and expandable... 21:21 Caliburn: it promotes... diverse fleets... 21:21 Caliburn: support ships 21:22 Sliprunner: hmm...well, I don't have much to say on it 21:22 Caliburn: It is masterful is it not? 21:24 Sliprunner: That is yet to be seen, Theory and Practice are two seperate things as I unfortunately learn fairly often 21:24 Caliburn: test it, 21:24 Sliprunner: ...numbers always sound fine in theory, but if that's true the DP system wouldn't have a problem 21:25 Caliburn: I will post it up likely friday night. 21:25 Caliburn: Your as cheerful as a... 21:25 Caliburn: -shrugs- 21:25 Sliprunner: alright, make sure people are aware it'll be in the E-warfare thread 21:25 Sliprunner: so they can check on it 21:26 Caliburn: They don't care 21:26 Sliprunner: This is extremely relevant for red at the least 21:26 Sliprunner: who's effected by the changes 21:26 Sliprunner: ...and Chon may be off to the side, but he does at least give some good insight at times 21:26 Caliburn: Red is a fucking cock gobbler. 21:27 Sliprunner: He's also a respected member 21:27 Caliburn: I almost decided on leaving after having to read that thread 10 times today 21:27 Sliprunner: who's opinion should be evaluted 21:27 Caliburn: His systems are just as broken as my additions 21:27 Caliburn: I am being blamed for this shit stain. 21:28 Sliprunner: You are also the one making the most extensive use of it 21:28 Sliprunner: for something that it previously could not do 21:28 Sliprunner: until the change in techs 21:28 Caliburn: This is collaborative writing. 21:28 Sliprunner: I'm aware, not contesting that 21:29 Caliburn: If Red or anyone else doesn't want people makeing changes and additions they should go write a novel.
It would appear that you told me, that YOU, the person known as Caliburn, would post the system. Instead what it appears is that you didn't post the system, until now, and are trying to use it to call me out for trying to cover things up. Do NOT call me out on such bullshit when that statement 'A solution he somehow decided not to include in detail' is a straight up lie, because you straight up told me that you would be posting the system.
I am going to state this for you formally Caliburn.
Learn to respond with a counter argument, not by invalidating the argument. Learn how to use Facts, and reasonable comparisons, not opinions and unrelated information. Learn how to Evaluate what others say, not ignore and even change what they said to fit your views. If you want to try discussing something, that involves actually talking, and not just assuming you are right.
In fact that last statement in the log is probably the most fun!
"21:29 Caliburn: If Red or anyone else doesn't want people makeing changes and additions they should go write a novel."
I believe you, Caliburn, as a person, would fall under this same statement. Such that if you do not wish for any changes or additions, perhaps you should go write a novel.
|
|
|
Post by RedDwarfIV on Mar 14, 2017 10:58:38 GMT -6
Oh wow. I can explain exactly why my systems are balanced and how you counter then in the RP without maths. But sure, they're broken, and I eat dicks. Thanks Cali.
|
|
Efelix
Theme Designer
not a cultist, may be a communist
Posts: 845
|
Post by Efelix on Mar 14, 2017 13:25:17 GMT -6
I feel like Red's proposal is the best for role playing purposes. Nobody likes math in GC. Nobody wants a card game simulation in GC. It's a role play, not a really really slow mobile game. "Sensor jamming" shouldn't be a thing. You should be able to dazzle sensors to break them, spoof sensors to make your enemies second guess what you're capable of, disrupt communications to shut down calls for help or cooperation between ships, and disrupt FTL. Size shouldn't really matter, and if anything, a smaller vessel should be better for e-war than a dreadnought as the smaller ship would be super-specialized, while a larger one would be multi-role or serve a specific combat purpose. I feel like those four (or perhaps a few more) types of e-war are easy to role play, and nobody feels cheated or gets the urge to try and game a system that shouldn't be there in the first place.
(You COULD make a support dreadnought... but that doesn't seem like something any of us would do with our limited resources right now.)
|
|
|
Post by Chonicler on Mar 14, 2017 14:24:09 GMT -6
I think that's probably the best course of action, Efelix, it makes it far more balanced than it currently is, giving it uses that can still turn the tide of a fight, but not be the automatic win card that it is ATM. And I agree, jamming sensors, especially optical sensors, just doesn't make scientific or logical sense. I always saw E-War and the such as a compliment to a fleet, not as a primary means of winning a fight, it aids in combat, but it doesn't guarantee that you will come out on top just because you have more E-War than the opposing fleet.
|
|