Electronic Warfare in Space, a Helpful Tip

[collins355]

TNE/Battle Rider had one of the better, playable, EW systems seen in Traveller space combat games. The basic game design aim of BR was, I understand, eggshells with bazookas - in other words the detection/counter-detection mechanic was intended to be a big part of the game.

BR had both passive and active sensor modes. You, as squadron commander, had to decide when to go active, knowing that would make you easier to detect by the adversaries' passives. At the start of play, all spacecraft were "unknowns". Task Force markers (some of which could be dummies) were used to indicate the possible traces of ships. But you needed to use sensor detections to discern what was actually there (if anything).

Sensors were given ranges and a base level of difficulty at each rangeband (this was a game using a hex mat). That level of difficulty was modified up or down by various factors, like target signature, whether target was active, if target was 'powered down', if target was stealthed, etc, etc.
EW systems were likewise given ranges. Jammers could be used to jam active sensors only, and a jamming task rolled each time an active sensor attempted a detection on task force. The level of difficulty depended on the range in hexes from the jammer to the detecting ship and the TL difference modified up or down the level of difficulty.
Some ships also carried jamming drones. These were what we would call today barrage jammers. They had an area of effect (the hex with the jamming drone and the six hexes adjacent on all sides). You'd fly them out in front of your fleet and try to position them where they'd cause most nuisance.

 

[Condottiere]

Over the decades and particularly in the last 40 years planetoid hulled escorts and cruisers have jumped into Terra’s Kuiper
belt or asteroid belt, where, disguised as asteroids, they lie in waiting for the uprising. Today the Solomani Confederation
Navy maintains the equivalent of three cruiser squadrons and four SDB wings in place throughout the Sol system with some
of these forces on Terra itself.

 

[ottarrus]

Good info here, but there's some things missing I think:

1) Space is b-i-g. With the distances listed, and travel times of missiles, launching first when your combat rounds are 6min long is really not an advantage, per se. I suppose the one who gets the first round off MIGHT be able to take advantage of it - but your target is only going to be one round behind, and someone has to lose the initiative die roll. Unless your attack is able launch and hit in the same round it's only slightly, possibly, advantageous. Range and time from launch/impact are the real killers. And getting that close to your target undetected is difficult.

2) Emissions are one thing, but power rules them all. At a distance a small craft with a jammer has the ability to jam/disrupt an emitter. But as the smaller (and less powerful) craft closes, the advantage swings to the side that has more power in their emitters to burn through interference from jamming. And, at some point, the side with the most powerful emitter wins and just overwhelms the less powerful emitter. Of course, detection is one thing, but having good enough data to get a target lock (and keep it) is the key. It's hard to model EW in a game to keep it playable because simplifying the process makes the game flow easier and the players don't have to worry about understanding ECM/ECCM warfare.

3) Active vs Passive is always a conundrum for both attacker and defender. Ground or ship-based sensors are nearly always superior to those in your birds - active allows you the lock to get to the target and (sometimes) keep painting the target for the missile to home in on. Otherwise you can launch blind (passive) and hope your bird's sensors will pick up the target on their own. Passive locks are a misnomer though, since you can't really do that - you need active sensors.

The comment about neutrino detection, well, if you are approaching from deep space then your emissions MIGHT get detected as being inbound rather than outbound from the star. Which means an attacker may arrive at the further side of a system and go towards the sun and then eventuall from a sunward direction. I doubt any neutrino detector would be able to differentiate neutrinos from a fusion-plant based vs. star fusion source. Coming from deep space you'd have a better idea, though one has to wonder if grav tech could dissipate and/or reorient neutrino output so that your emissions are not going out in a cone in front of you. Warfare has taught us that there is always an opponent or technology out there that changes the rules on you.

There is another good book called the Third World War by Sir John Hackett (published a while ago). It posits a short 3-week war between NATO and Warsaw Pact in the 80s. It's not Clancy-esque, but I thought it did a really good job on relaying the battle side of things via the battle vs. the characters.

1. Space is very big, granted, but at some point all forces will have to engage in order to accomplish their strategic goals.
2. Yes, power does rule them all but that smaller ship's power plant will easily be overwhelmed by the larger plant of the capital ship. If Big Daddy radiates down one degree of arc at Little Boy, the crew of Little Boy are either gonna die or have TEKs ['three eyed kids'] when they get home.
3. Active v. Passive is the whole point of EW. Whoever wins the electronic battle dictates the conditions of battle once you start firing ordnance downrange.

As to the specific method of detection, whether it's neutrinos or radar makes not a whole lot of difference. I was just using neutrinos as an example and an easily understandable buzzword.

The Third World War is one of three in my 'War Three Trilogy'... The Third World War, Red Storm Rising, and Team Yankee. Another excellent honorable mention is Ralph Peters' 'Red Army'. I think for the purposes of getting the novice to understand EW, Red Storm works best, but YMMV and all that.

 

[MasterGwydion]

1. Space is very big, granted, but at some point all forces will have to engage in order to accomplish their strategic goals.
2. Yes, power does rule them all but that smaller ship's power plant will easily be overwhelmed by the larger plant of the capital ship. If Big Daddy radiates down one degree of arc at Little Boy, the crew of Little Boy are either gonna die or have TEKs ['three eyed kids'] when they get home.
3. Active v. Passive is the whole point of EW. Whoever wins the electronic battle dictates the conditions of battle once you start firing ordnance downrange.

As to the specific method of detection, whether it's neutrinos or radar makes not a whole lot of difference. I was just using neutrinos as an example and an easily understandable buzzword.

The Third World War is one of three in my 'War Three Trilogy'... The Third World War, Red Storm Rising, and Team Yankee. Another excellent honorable mention is Ralph Peters' 'Red Army'. I think for the purposes of getting the novice to understand EW, Red Storm works best, but YMMV and all that.

I would totally love to see a fairly simple EW system in Traveller. Each ship would need to have a new stat, the Emission Rating. This stat is basically just how easy it is to detect. High Guard would need updated, outside of just the sensor rules. Each component that can be put on a ship or in a vehicle should have it's own Emission Rating. Players would be able to alter their Emission Rating by shutting down systems on board their ship. How Emission rating should be determined? Up for debate. If @Sigtrygg takes interest in this idea, I am sure he will have many good ideas for this.

This Emission Rating is only important when using Passive Sensors. So, with My previous idea of each component having an Emission Rating, in the case of things like power plants, that emission rating would be per ton. This would obviously also apply to all drives as well. Each weapon would have it's own Emission Rating, firmpoint weapons, turrets, barbettes, bays, and spinal weapons. A new Customisation option could be added, Reduced Emissions, each level reducing the Emission Rating by a percentage. What percentage? Who knows? That would have to be worked out, probably by @Sigtrygg as he seems to have a good grasp of EW. Also, @Sigtrygg gravity or whatever heat sink that he came up with would also affect the ship's Emission Rating. Ship Size does not affect the Emission Rating. Size affects detection when Active Sensors are used. Size does affect the sensitivity of Passive Sensors. The larger the sensor, the more sensitive it is. (Advantage to large ships, stations, and ground-based sensors) This can be accomplished by merely buy multiples of the sensors to reflect a larger array.

Active Sensors are fairly simple. It is a function of size of the array and the amount of power pumped through that array. Each Power Point used by the array increases its Detection Rating. Now Detection Rating is actually 2 numbers, a Passive Detection Rating and an Active Detection Rating. Passive Detection Rating is mainly a function of the size of the array. Active Detection Rating is determined by two things, size and power. The size of the array will determine its range. The power points pumped into the array increase the Active Detection Rating, up to maximums per ton determined by Tech Level of the Sensor. Detection Rating degrades by range band, so a ship that may be easy to detect at 20,000km, will be harder to detect at 5,000,000km. When sensors are active only two things affect detection (after you have the Active Detection Ratings worked out) Size of the ship you are trying to detect and any Stealth coatings or whatever that they have to try and prevent active detection. These modifiers are already in the game, so I just wasn't going to mess with them.

Now that you have the base rules for sensors, how does any of this apply at the PC-scale? How does this affect players rolling dive? Easy.
Compare the Detection Rating to the Emission Rating (for Passive Sensors) or by some "Stealth Rating" that would have to be come up with. Basically, it is just a rating stating how stealthy the ship is. It is not actual stealth. If you turn on your Active Sensors, you are going to get a much larger return on a Tigress versus a Type-S at the same ranges. So, maybe a better term needs to be thought of to avoid confusion in the future.

No idea if any of this makes sense or is even a good idea. Just some late-night musing on how cool EW is.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, power input should be an indication how detectable a spacecraft component is, if not mitigated by attempts to conceal it.

 

[NOLATrav]

Somewhere here, AnotherDilbert and I discussed how power plant output could provide DMs for detection. A simple table of X Power = +/- DM. A simplified way of accounting for waste heat and exotic emissions.

I built my own table, will post it later. The upshot is a Free Trader emits about the same heat as your average planet. A Tigress emits the same heat as a weak Class M Dwarf star. Sounds silly but translate to Kelvins.

So how do you “win” EW if everything is immediately visible? Everyone is in passive mode and knows where everyone else is. How do you gain advantage on a level playing field?

 

[Condottiere]

Send in the Scouts.

They move forward, until someone shoots at them.

 

[Sigtrygg]

So thoughts. I am currently fixated with APE: active - passive - electronic warfare

a ship will need to have APE signature and APE arrays.

Active signature - hull size, configuration, stealth are factors
Passive signature - power plant EP, m-drive type and rating (reaction drives are very bright...), hull size
Electronic signature - active sensor energy, comms, transponder, weapons fire...

Active sensor rating - sensor array area, processing and power combine to give rating (the rating is both range and intensity)
Passive sensor rating - sensor area and processing gives rating
Electronic warfare rating - array area, processing, energy, secondary devices combine to give rating

The array area is an important factor for all APE

The EP used by the active sensor and the electronic warfare systems is important

Processing power is important for all three

I think T4 had the simplest system, three numbers which are compared to then provide DMs to PC sensor tasks.

 

[ottarrus]

The concept you're looking for is what the USN calls an 'APEW suite' [Active/Passive/Electronic Warfare]. These are systems that are linked with a pretty a dedicated computer to analyze traffic and to automatically hone frequencies for ECM/ECCM systems. As I understand it, this system is completely separate from the comms systems.
And yeah, for a theoretical future wargame it would be simplest to make a DM calculation of :

+ DMs for Specific systems
+ Operator skill [probably depicted as a Crew Quality rating]
+ Computer system rating
- Power Plant rating
- Mode setting [Active or Passive]
- Environment conditions
- Certain Hull Types [stealth coating, planetoid hull, etc]
+/- Ship Size modifier
+/- TL differential

There's likely more, but that's what occurs to me at 0430....

 

[collins355]

And the key point, if you want players having to make consequential decisions, is to make passive detection ranges usually less than active detection ranges, unless the target of the detection attempt is itself active (in which case, the passives should detect it generally further away than the active detection range).

If you set up the rules mechanic and sensor ratings this way you'll have a game where people have to make difficult choices - do I stay passive and hope to coast in undetected? Do I go active but risk standing out like a searchlight to everyone staying passive? etc etc

 

[ottarrus]

And the key point, if you want players having to make consequential decisions, is to make passive detection ranges usually less than active detection ranges, unless the target of the detection attempt is itself active (in which case, the passives should detect it generally further away than the active detection range).

If you set up the rules mechanic and sensor ratings this way you'll have a game where people have to make difficult choices - do I stay passive and hope to coast in undetected? Do I go active but risk standing out like a searchlight to everyone staying passive? etc etc

Passive will [or should] naturally have a MUCH shorter range than active. And going Active will [or should] dramatically increase detection chances [like 100% detection unless the DMs are significantly in the player's favor].
Properly designed, I'd like the EW mechanics to feel like 'The Enemy Below' or 'The Hunt for Red October'. Players should be sweating like they're in Type VIIC U-Boat trying to get a ping on a convoy.

 

[Arkathan]

Passive will [or should] naturally have a MUCH shorter range than active. And going Active will [or should] dramatically increase detection chances [like 100% detection unless the DMs are significantly in the player's favor].
Properly designed, I'd like the EW mechanics to feel like 'The Enemy Below' or 'The Hunt for Red October'. Players should be sweating like they're in Type VIIC U-Boat trying to get a ping on a convoy.

I've done several of those with my group.
Clear the table and put the black cover on, break out ship minis,
Gather intel on a planetary patrol, cut engines, coast in, 5 inches at a time, roll sensops to hide signature and sweat as the patrols go past or get near to medium range, hoping the patrol craft roll low...

 

[Condottiere]

1. Put everyone in a blackout room with a tennis ball and a torchlight.

2. Have the submariners crawl underneath the table, in a hundred eighty degree flip of Battleship.

3. On the Japanese Indian Ocean Raid, I knew what was coming, so I gathered the Royal Navy units, and sent them on a cruise around the Indian Ocean, while reinforcing the Royal Air Force on Ceylon, and scattering the merchantmen, giving the Japanese commander a dilemma, target rich environment, but unsure what his aircraft scouts were looking at.

 

[ottarrus]

Let's get back on point though.
As Mongoose Matt and others have said, Traveller's demographic is shifting from veterans and towards a more civilian civilian and casual player. Yet combat is still a basic function of the game and all us 'ol' warheads' need to find ways to give the new Traveller players a way to understand aspects of combat beyond simple firefights. WE all know that EW or small craft ops or boarding parties or artillery fire take a bit of thought and planning. The new players don't. And the Fifth Frontier War is a great opportunity to help them out.

So any other ideas beyond 'Red Storm' and submarines to give new players good examples of sensor systems can and can not do?

 

[Condottiere]

Wire guided.

I think the Russians are upto fifteen klix glass fibre.

Interesting question as to how far you could do that in space.

 

[Sigtrygg]

ping pong balls on golf tees

the single most innovative thing brought to the table by T2300.

until you actively scan or obtain passive resolution all long range objects are blank - you know there is somehting out there but you don't know what it is.

passive detection - target ship passive signature + passive sensor rating gives you detection range for a 12+ target number (trouble is that Mongoose range bands are not the same size, so this requires more thought or scrap MgT range bands in favour of consistency of scale...)

active detection - target ship passive signature + passive sensor rating gives you detection range for an 12+ target number

electronic warfare rating - compare for the ships involved to get a modifier for the above two tasks

Rather than have APE ratings and APE signatures the state block could be combined

A x/y P x/y EW x

x = rating, y = signature

For the non-gearheads this requires the addition of the APE numbers

for gearheads we can have the factors that determine the numbers...

 

[Varulv]

I have no real life experience with EW, but I always found GDWs 2300AD rules to be simple and intuitive.

 

[Vormaerin]

Let's get back on point though.
As Mongoose Matt and others have said, Traveller's demographic is shifting from veterans and towards a more civilian civilian and casual player.

I don't think this formulation is correct. It's true that the US had a higher percentage of veterans in the 70s thanks the Vietnam War, but I don't think that Traveller was in any way specifically tailored to veterans.

Most of Traveller's fancy systems were separated out into actual board wargames. The willingness to play wargames is definitely a difference from the 70s and 80s compared to today, but I think that's because gamers today are into computers, not boardgames (by and large, wargaming is still around, of course).

The gearhead faction of Traveller was always small, which is why even when they did pile into the details with books like Fire, Fusion, and Steel, they did not gain widespread use. Those were valuable, but niche, books.

That hasn't changed. There's still a small population of the player base that really dives into the nitty gritty of building warships and statblocks for stuff, but the majority of the players are like "Neat" but aren't actually gonna do that.

It's true that the average player of Traveller is not going to understand the nitty gritty of EW (or astrophysics or any number of other things). But that's been true since the first books came out.

 

[ottarrus]

I don't think this formulation is correct. It's true that the US had a higher percentage of veterans in the 70s thanks the Vietnam War, but I don't think that Traveller was in any way specifically tailored to veterans.

Most of Traveller's fancy systems were separated out into actual board wargames. The willingness to play wargames is definitely a difference from the 70s and 80s compared to today, but I think that's because gamers today are into computers, not boardgames (by and large, wargaming is still around, of course).

The gearhead faction of Traveller was always small, which is why even when they did pile into the details with books like Fire, Fusion, and Steel, they did not gain widespread use. Those were valuable, but niche, books.

That hasn't changed. There's still a small population of the player base that really dives into the nitty gritty of building warships and statblocks for stuff, but the majority of the players are like "Neat" but aren't actually gonna do that.

It's true that the average player of Traveller is not going to understand the nitty gritty of EW (or astrophysics or any number of other things). But that's been true since the first books came out.

Traveller wasn't tailored to veterans, but there were a Hell of a lot us back then. Making a pure spitball guess, I should think that 40% of Traveller purchases were made by veterans in the 80s, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was an out-and-out majority. First you start with GDW's beginning audience of wargame fans. Then the very first 'expansion' [other than Supplements and Adventures] was Book 4: Mercenary followed by Book 5: High Guard. And the gearhead folks are just as likely to be wargamers or veterans as the shoot 'em up guys. There's nothing that precludes any of these sub-communities from mixing and matching.

In any event, Traveller has traditionally catered to the 'warhead' demographic... veterans, wargame fans, military historians and the like. But I see that changing. There are more people becoming fans of Traveller that have a civilian mindset. This is fine with me, but my point is that I think the militarily knowledgeable of us need to make some of the more misunderstood military concepts easy for the new fan to digest.

 

[steelbrok]

The thing is, fun as a wargame is, when I'm running an RPG session I want rules that will resolve a battle fairly quickly with a PC POV and their involvement meaning something. I don't want to break and set up a wargame to resolve things