Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Reynard » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:33 am

It really depends on what 'exhaust' is in Traveller ship terms. Obviously reaction drive is using powerful exhaust as a motive system. No matter the illustrations we see over the last 40 years, the regular descriptions of reactionless drives indicate there is no wave or particle energy to trace. Better to look for a power source within the vessel and even that can be fairly well hidden by hull and normal system insulation. At best, those aft exhaust vents are some sort of waste energy dumping radiations in the visible and invisible spectrums. Unless your sensors are aimed at the tailpipe, the majority of exhaust radiation is not going to show.

It's not that you eliminate all emissions but you reduce it enough to make finding it significantly difficult as represented by the game mechanics.
Last edited by Reynard on Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Old School
Stoat
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Old School » Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:10 pm

The game could really use a detailed example of ship sensors and combat from the publisher. I think I'm doing it right. Knowing exactly what the rules intend may not change how I do it, but clarity as to the intent would help.
Geir
Shrew
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:48 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Geir » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:17 pm

Reynard wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:33 am
It really depends on what 'exhaust' is in Traveller ship terms. Obviously reaction drive is using powerful exhaust as a motive system. No matter the illustrations we see over the last 40 years, the regular descriptions of reactionless drives indicate their is no wave or particle energy to trace. Better to look for a power source within the vessel and even that can be fairly well hidden by hull and normal system insulation. At best, those aft exhaust vents are some sort of waste energy dumping radiations in the visible and invisible spectrums. Unless your sensors are aimed at the tailpipe, the majority of exhaust radiation is not going to show.

It's not that you eliminate all emissions but you reduce it enough to make finding it significantly difficult as represented by the game mechanics.
Travelller has bounced all over the place on how the M drive works. The original High Guard book talked about using fusion drives as weapons (somebody must have been reading Niven back in '80). MegaTraveller had a detailed description about how the reactionless thrusters worked, even for landings and take-offs. TNE went with some sort of plasma drive. Mongoose versions seem vague on it. I'm still not sure if there is a difference between "lifters" and M drive. T5 has lots of variations.
But in any case, the laws of thermodynamics apply and waste heat has to go somewhere, so maybe using power output as a proxy makes sense. More heat, easier to detect. Since ship designs universally have the M drive pointed out the back, I imagine it looks like the "blue glow" out of a Star Wars-looking drive. Maybe it's waste heat, maybe it's some sort of exotic graviton-like particle.

Another consideration is movement. Running silent and not accelerating looks different than changing vectors. Plus, it should be easier to maintain a "lock" than achieving one, since you already know where the ship was and where it was going. Check every ship against every other ship every turn is certinaly not a practical method with more than two or three combatants.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2942
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:47 pm

Geir wrote: I'm still not sure if there is a difference between "lifters" and M drive. T5 has lots of variations.
Lifters is a weak anti-grav drive (like an air/raft), it has no effect in space.

Geir wrote: Check every ship against every other ship every turn is certinaly not a practical method with more than two or three combatants.
Completely agree.
HalC
Weasel
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby HalC » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:08 am

Old School wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:10 pm
The game could really use a detailed example of ship sensors and combat from the publisher. I think I'm doing it right. Knowing exactly what the rules intend may not change how I do it, but clarity as to the intent would help.
I'm surprised that there isn't an actual combat example. Has anyone tried to do one - step by step? For instance, why not start with a simple scenario. Postulate where the ships start out, and then run it step by step until resolved?
HalC
Weasel
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby HalC » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:08 am

Old School wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:10 pm
The game could really use a detailed example of ship sensors and combat from the publisher. I think I'm doing it right. Knowing exactly what the rules intend may not change how I do it, but clarity as to the intent would help.
I'm surprised that there isn't an actual combat example. Has anyone tried to do one - step by step? For instance, why not start with a simple scenario. Postulate where the ships start out, and then run it step by step until resolved?
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6318
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Condottiere » Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:34 pm

I mentioned something similar in regard to the ship design sequence.

I think it was implied that the third edition will probably have them.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6318
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Condottiere » Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:32 am

In regard to lifters, I think the basic idea was to cancel the effects of local gravitation.

But logically, if the result is a net positive, it should operate like planetary vehicles' gravitational motors; not accounting for atmospheric resistance, hull configuration, and annoyed home owners, you could zip along at hypersonic speeds if the positive is high enough.
Linwood
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Linwood » Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:29 pm

I would expect any propulsion system that was based on gravitics would have a grav-based signature. Possibly an FTL signature?
Geir
Shrew
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:48 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Geir » Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:36 pm

Linwood wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:29 pm
I would expect any propulsion system that was based on gravitics would have a grav-based signature. Possibly an FTL signature?
Gravity waves travel at the speed of light, just like Einstein theorized. The LIGO experiment pretty much confirmed that. But maybe a Densitometer would detect a gravitational signature.
paltrysum
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby paltrysum » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:59 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:34 pm
I think it was implied that the third edition will probably have them.
Third edition?! When? In 2022? I don't see them going back to add anything like this in the near future.
"Spacers lead a sedentary life. They live at home, and their home is always with them—their starship, and so is their country—the depths of space."
HalC
Weasel
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby HalC » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:58 pm

paltrysum wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:59 pm
Condottiere wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:34 pm
I think it was implied that the third edition will probably have them.
Third edition?! When? In 2022? I don't see them going back to add anything like this in the near future.
So - what is to keep anyone from publishing examples as official examples in the same manner as errata can be published? A free download as a PDF document would be one thing. Distributing it via RPGNOW.COM (same location as where I purchased the PDFs for the rulebook and Highguard (both editions) would be quite handy. Best of all, if it is free, and the example is "exciting" enough, it might whet interest in the sales of other PDFs in the product line.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6318
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Condottiere » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:15 am

Basically, you want the original author(s)/designer(s) to demonstrate how it's meant to function.

Before you figure out how to exploit it legally.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby baithammer » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:35 am

Condottiere wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:32 am
In regard to lifters, I think the basic idea was to cancel the effects of local gravitation.

But logically, if the result is a net positive, it should operate like planetary vehicles' gravitational motors; not accounting for atmospheric resistance, hull configuration, and annoyed home owners, you could zip along at hypersonic speeds if the positive is high enough.
Need to remember that Thrust 0 is a valid option in 2nd Edition, which is basically 0.5 g and equal to speed band 5 in vehicle scale. ( Thrust 1 = Speed band 10 for vehicle scale.)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6318
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Condottiere » Sat Sep 22, 2018 4:33 am

Image

Don't do that.

Specify the exact acceleration, even in fractions.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby baithammer » Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:07 am

At ship scale anything less than 1.0 is effectively 0, as you can't use it to move out of orbit on its own. ( Could use it for deep space between large bodies.)
Linwood
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Sensors Vs Superior Stealth

Postby Linwood » Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:46 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 4:33 am
Image

Don't do that.

Specify the exact acceleration, even in fractions.
:D

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests