Sensors and Hardpoints

A thread of 2 messages, 30 April 1992 to 30 April 1992, in the order they were sent.

#4039 Re: Sensors and Hardpoints

Robert S. Dean · 30 April 1992 · reply to #4038

Scott (2G) Kellogg writes:
>
> Cynthia points out that it might be more realistic to require that large
> sensors require hardpoints for mounting.  Thus limiting the number of sensors
> that can be mounted on the hull.
>
> Rob and Steve are ready to throw out the hardpoint restrictions.
>
> (Sigh!)

No, you mistake my intent slightly, Scott.  I merely said that if we were
going to go for "realism" we should do both.

> Ok, philosophy time!  The following is my opinion on modifications to
> be made to Trav.
> *I* think that the technolgy depicted in Trav falls short of where things
> would actually be.  The difference bettween TL 15 and TL 8 is not the
> equivalent difference bettween TL 8 and TL 1.  Nope!  No way!

Marc Miller (RIP) stated in a seminar at Origins last year that the tech
levels were never especially intended to be "equally spaced" in any way.
So, don't worry about it.

> Thus, all the ships that have been designed are now totally useless.  A
> scout ship can no longer mount decent sensors *and* weapons?  No way!  Sorry!
> I won't agree to that one.  All the ships we have would have to be thrown out
> the window.  Furthermore, since GDW isn't likey to adopt a modification like
> that, all the designs they come out with in the future will be incompatible.
> As a designer I may be prolific, but I'm not THAT prolific.

Right.  I don't want to do that either, and I'm the only designer who is more
prolific than you are.  Consider my statement to have been something along the
lines of a rhetorical device.

> So, I will tend to disagree with notions that downgrade the performance of
> systems in the game.  If a system is more efficient than it might be in real
> life, I will be suspicious, but I will still tend to use it. (fusion rockets)
> But, if said system is less efficent than it should be I will change it.
> (Nulcear fission)

Well, obviously I agree about nuclear fission.  However, my problem with
fusion rockets as presented in COACC is that they are so good that there
is no reason that anyone would ever use thrusters.  So, along the lines of
'don't invalidate more work than you have to', fusion rockets need to be
refigured until they are in some sort of trade-off position with respect to
thrusters (and standard grav maneuver drives.)

>
> BTW, Steve, on agility:  check out the archives.  Rob Dean and I came up with
> a couple arguments on it that (to us) make sense) Essentually, our definition
> came back from high guard calculations and Rob's thrust based maneuver cal-
> culations. The upshot of it was that a ship will have an agility equivalent
> to the max acceleration of it's engines in G's.  By diverting power from the
> engines to weapons you decrease the acceleration you're pulling.

Actually Scott, I suspect that Steve is familiar with that.  What he has just
posted is a question as to whether or not _any_ agility should be figured
"realistically".  Having once done some calculations on how many maneuver Gs
would be required to alter the projected position of a ship by more than
one ship length, I tend to agree with him in principle.  Since ship combat
is in sad shape anyway, this is the sort of area in which I am a little more
comfortable considering changes.

Just as an arguing position, I would suggest that agility be reduced to a small
factor at long range only, and that _more_ emphasis should be placed on
computers, sensors, jammers, countermeasures and perhaps relative velocity in
working out combat.  In addition, we really need to start a thread concerning
missiles in combat, especially with respect to how they home and what effects
if any the firing computer should have on their peformance.

Rob Dean

#4038 Sensors and Hardpoints

[unnamed sender] · 30 April 1992

Cynthia points out that it might be more realistic to require that large
sensors require hardpoints for mounting.  Thus limiting the number of sensors
that can be mounted on the hull.

Rob and Steve are ready to throw out the hardpoint restrictions.

(Sigh!)

Well, IMO, I can see there being reasons for both cases.  However, I can
much more easily justify there being hardpoint restrictions for weapons than
I can for sensors.  *Some* of the turret weapons have recoil.  Fusion/Plasma
weapons, and to a lesser extent sandcasters and missile racks.  (In my games
the missile racks use a grav ejector system to throw the missile clear of the
ship before the engine ignites)

Similar arguments don't exist to limit the number of sensor type hardpoints.
The sensors (IMO) are going to be split up into small units spread over the
entire available area of the hull.  Ok, I don't know how big an antenni an
interstellar range EMS scanner is gonna be, but I would think that the hull
of a 100 tonner could handle it.

For the moment lemme stick to A-EMS ok?  IMO, A-EMS is going to have a
series of small emmitters spread out over the hull like a large phased array
radar.  The emmiters and collectors all spread out over the whole surface.
This is consistant with the damage tables in starship combat.  You don't
knock out sensor arrays with surface damage hits.  Why?  Because they're
*all over* the hull.  You hit one emmitter, and there are n minus one others
still working just fine.

Passive sensors work just the same.  Spread out the area and it works better.

Now neutrino sensors are gonna be programmed to ignore the emmissions of the
fusion plant that is built to power it, right?  I do not see why a densiometer
could not similarly be programmed to ignore the grav field of the ship that
it resides in.  Therefore I don't see the necessity for mounting them on
booms.

While I can see the advantage of their being specific mounts (the booms) for
sensors.  I don't see that there is going to be a great increase in surface
area for the booms.  I don't think that it's going to be all that big an
increase.  For instance, a passive EMS substellar could be mounted either on
a 500 ton ship using hardpoints or a 100 ton ship using a boom.  A boom that
expands to that size is gonna have to be *huge*, much larger than 135Kl.
It will also cause problems with fire control for ship's weapons.  You have
a *huge* antenni next to the hull and it will act to restrict the firing arc
of your weapons rather severely I would think.

Now while that big a boom is gonna be a big thing in terms of radar cross
section, it isn't going to add to the Objsize as it is now computed.  Objsize
is related to the ships mass only.  I think the only time it gets brought in
is in densiometer scans, not Radar and A-EMS.

Ok, philosophy time!  The following is my opinion on modifications to
be made to Trav.
*I* think that the technolgy depicted in Trav falls short of where things
would actually be.  The difference bettween TL 15 and TL 8 is not the
equivalent difference bettween TL 8 and TL 1.  Nope!  No way!

There is also the argument that looking at the performance of the technology
and downgrading it is going to devalidate all the work that was done before.
Thus, all the ships that have been designed are now totally useless.  A
scout ship can no longer mount decent sensors *and* weapons?  No way!  Sorry!
I won't agree to that one.  All the ships we have would have to be thrown out
the window.  Furthermore, since GDW isn't likey to adopt a modification like
that, all the designs they come out with in the future will be incompatible.

As a designer I may be prolific, but I'm not THAT prolific.

So, I will tend to disagree with notions that downgrade the performance of
systems in the game.  If a system is more efficient than it might be in real
life, I will be suspicious, but I will still tend to use it.  (fusion rockets)
But, if said system is less efficent than it should be I will change it.
(Nulcear fission)

BTW, Steve, on agility:  check out the archives.  Rob Dean and I came up with
a couple arguments on it that (to us) make sence)  Essentually, our definition
came back from high guard calculations and Rob's thrust based maneuver
calculations.  The upshot of it was that a ship will have an agility equivalent
to the max acceleration of it's engines in G's.  By diverting power from the
engines to weapons you decrease the acceleration you're pulling.

Scott (2G) Kellogg
"Here come the LOBSTERS!" - A. Sayle