multiple Sensors/EW systems, and Jammers

[wbnc]

Okay with all the talk of missiles and the effects of EW I had a a few questions. I may have missed answers earlier, or I might just be dense....but here are the question I have.

1)can a ship mount multiple Sensor, ECM systems.?
2) How many operators can use an Sensor, or ECM system
3) does a ship need sensors with Jammer as a part of the system,or an ECM system to perform EW?
4) can you Attempt EW on missiles not aimed at your vessel?

My thoughts
1) yes, buying a new system allows a seperate operator per system
2) one operator per system, treat them like EW turrets
3) No jammers, or ECM, no EW
4) yes, with a -DM

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I like the way you think.

If I have understood it correctly a single sensor operator can perform all the sensor/EW actions necessary during a round. He can attempt to lock on to, and break lock from each ship in sensor range. He can EW all incoming missile salvoes, but each salvo can only be EWed once totally per round.

Rereading the rules we need a crew person who is assigned to the role "Sensor Operator" to perform the actions "Sensor Lock" and "Electronic Warfare". We do not need any equipment. All space craft are assumed to have basic sensors.
Any sensor DM "is applied to all Electronics (comms) and Electronics (sensors) checks made by crew in the ship", e.g. EW.
Any Countermeasures DM "grants DM to all attempts at jamming and electronic warfare, regardless of the usual DM the sensor suite it is attached to"
Any Signal Processing DM "grants DM to all sensor-related checks", this probably stacks with Countermeasures DM, which surprised me.

So, you can do EW without ECM. You use the sensor DM, but must use the ECM DM instead if you have it. Add the ESP DM.


4) No, Core p.162 Electronic Warfare: "A Traveller performing sensor operator duties on a spacecraft can use the Electronic Warfare action to destroy or misdirect incoming missiles before they impact his vessel".


This is my interpretation of the rules, I hope someone will tell me if I'm wrong...

 

[wbnc]

I like the way you think.

If I have understood it correctly a single sensor operator can perform all the sensor/EW actions necessary during a round. He can attempt to lock on to, and break lock from each ship in sensor range. He can EW all incoming missile salvoes, but each salvo can only be EWed once totally per round.

Rereading the rules we need a crew person who is assigned to the role "Sensor Operator" to perform the actions "Sensor Lock" and "Electronic Warfare". We do not need any equipment. All space craft are assumed to have basic sensors.
Any sensor DM "is applied to all Electronics (comms) and Electronics (sensors) checks made by crew in the ship", e.g. EW.
Any Countermeasures DM "grants DM to all attempts at jamming and electronic warfare, regardless of the usual DM the sensor suite it is attached to"
Any Signal Processing DM "grants DM to all sensor-related checks", this probably stacks with Countermeasures DM, which surprised me.

So, you can do EW without ECM. You use the sensor DM, but must use the ECM DM instead if you have it. Add the ESP DM.


4) No, Core p.162 Electronic Warfare: "A Traveller performing sensor operator duties on a spacecraft can use the Electronic Warfare action to destroy or misdirect incoming missiles before they impact his vessel".


This is my interpretation of the rules, I hope someone will tell me if I'm wrong...

Personally i think the No Jammers/No Ecm would be a good change. while sensors are active transmitters, there is a huge difference between a radar unit, and an ECM pod. and since jammers are listed as unique features of several sensor suites, It seems that they would be needed for any sort of jamming/Spoofing. It kind of makes me wrinkle my nose to think a Ship with it's free basic sensor package can do all the tricks a Military grade sensor pack can do...with some -DM tacked on.

also since a ship can take fire from multiple sources at the same time, the operator wold be hard pressed to counter all of them. without suffering from serious data overload, and diiminishing returns due to his attention being split between distinct tasks

giving the option of multiple sensor suites, and multiple ECM pods operated by single crewan each it would help balance out things. Since one operator can only act once, against a single target/threat. ECM is a powerful defensive tool, that can be applied to several threats at the same time. If it requires a separate operator, and system to pull off, Jamming, break lock-on, establish lock on, and scan for information at the same time a ship with multiple sensor "turrets" would be at an advantage. and make EW?ECM more fully integrated into the design process as an area of focus.

if you limited the effects of multiple sensor packs, to granting a bomus similar to multiple identical weapon in a turret then it wouldn't be too overbalanced. +1 per sensor operator coordinating on a task would be a fair bonus, with a maximum number set to account for the fact if you start pumping out too many signals at once they will interfere with one another.

Also this would being the concept of a dedicated EW/EC/AWACS/ warship into play. being able to affect a wide variety of targets at once...making it a high priority target during the opening phases of a combat engagement.

Suggestions...
1)Multiple operators allowed, with requirement of one sensor suite per operator
2) one task per operator, per round
2) enhanced signal processing, dispersed arrays, etc.. affect all sensors carried by a vessel but need a dedicated operator.
3) ECM affects only one sensor suite per unit installed.
4) EW can affect missiles, sensors, not directly targeted at the operators vessel with -2 DM on any check, ( may need to be tweaked feels a little low, actually feels really low.)
5) active EW/ECM/Sensor Negate stealth/Emissions Absorption hull upgrade and/or other similar systems
6) using active sensors mean immediate detection by other craft in area, no details other than direction, distance, and type of sensor being used.
7) distinct difference between fire control sensors, and search sensor modes. another ship can tell when you have activated your fire control radar.( activating fire control sensors is a hostile/threatening act)
8 ) firing weapons without fire control mode engaged imposes a bane of any attack rolls.
9) firing a weapon using only passive sensors imposes a -4 to any attack, stacks with not using fire control mode.( makes a sneak shot rather tricky, but could catch an approaching ship flatfooted.especially if you have pop-up/concealed weapons.)

 

[Chas]

Ah, yes good wbnc, this was exactly a point I was pondering.

Any Signal Processing DM "grants DM to all sensor-related checks", this probably stacks with Countermeasures DM, which surprised me.

Yes a key point, I did a table of all the +'s and -'s by tech level (which since needs revising due to stealth and improved) and had asked to reconfirm this question but didn't get a definitive answer.

Another open point is that there is no Tech Level on the counter measure suites, which is not in line with the rules in general. There should obviously be both a tech level associated with this, and improvement in the counter measure suits from TL10 to 15.

Other points to consider:
- When you jam another ship's communications does this also include jamming their EW counter measures? If you have successfully jammed the opponent's ship does that mean they can't attack missiles until the jam is broken for example? I assume yes, which then leads to this point:

3) ECM affects only one sensor suite per unit installed.

and then

1)Multiple operators allowed, with requirement of one sensor suite per operator

This then has the issue of do you need multiple counter measure suites or Enhanced Signal Processing suits per actual sensor suite?
Multiple operators do individual tasks in a turn, like simultaneously attempt to lock on while also attacking incoming missiles, yes definitely. But the whole balance needs careful consideration.
Perhaps one option is require an individual Counter Measure Suite / operator / action for EW?? I think Matt was on board thinking these were a bit too cheap for the result as they currently stand.
There will be serious issues on a larger scale with this in any case, where multiple ships are targeting one ship and we're getting into the realm of bulk rolls again. It's messy.

3) ECM affects only one sensor suite per unit installed.

A tricky point related to above.

enhanced signal processing, dispersed arrays, etc.. affect all sensors carried by a vessel but need a dedicated operator.

Not so sure about this one. These are parts of the system that work as part of the system as it were. Distributed arrays are certainly a passive effect, simply a bigger and better antenna and specifically state are computer controlled as they would need to be.

7) distinct difference between fire control sensors, and search sensor modes. another ship can tell when you have activated your fire control radar.( activating fire control sensors is a hostile/threatening act)

A typical sci-fi scenario but in Traveller probably redundant, if you're doing this you're firing in the same round anyways. It could be a rare occasion somebody might want to wait to fire by getting lock on first - in this case the target will know they are being locked on yes.

 

[wbnc]

I can see where a bag of dice might result when using a sip with multiple systems. especially when it's say a 100k ship with twenty EC/Sensor units.

perhaps a two tier system is called for. When dealing with sub capital/single ship-on-ship engagements the rules could be set up so that each individual ECM/Senosr is a separate item. However when when dealing with larger engagements, large ships with lots of separate ECM/sensor systems you can go with something along the lines that a single roll can counter, or affect as many targets/threats/jamming attempts as it has sensor operators/units.

each ship involved would make a single check, and if successful it either cancels the EW/Detection/jamming of the other ships, or succeeds in it's own attempt...if it has fewer system/operators, than the ship dedicated to the attempted task then it detected, jammed, locked on etc.

example
Cruiser A attempts to achieve lock on it has 20 Units and dedicates ten to achieving lock on.holding back 10 for defensive purposes.
he operators all suceed in getting a lock on, and Destroyer A decideds to try to break the lock onn
Destroyer B has 15 units installed, and tries dedicates ten units to defeating The lock on attempt by cruiser A...
( a bit of wording might e added to prevent cruiser a from promptly dedicating the rest of it's sensors, unless that is an acceptable option...after all if it dedicates all of it's systems to getting that lock on..it has none left for defense.)

Destroyer B succeeds it has defeated Cruiser A in the lock on attempt, and has 5 units left to dedicate to other tasks
Unfortunately Destroyer C decides to lock on and dedicates 10 Units to the attempt...
Destroyer B can only dedicate 5 units to the attempt to prevent lock on so Destroyer B achieves a lock on.(tying up multiple systems to do so.)



net result destroyer B has tied up all of it's ECM/Sensor units, and has been locked onto.However Destroyer C has only 5 units to combat lock ons by any other ships, or fighter formations trying to lock on.

one set of rolls and some minor book keeping for each ship that is involved.

for EW each salvo that is targeted for EW requires one Sensor/ECM unit...if they haven't got any free units no EW defense.

if a ship doesn't have any available sensor, or ECM gear any attempt to jam it, get a lock on, or gather information using sensors, isn't automatic, becomes an unopposed check all the operator has to do is succeed at a skill check vs an assigned difficulty.

this would make it a bit less dice heavy, and would prevent a few tons/Mcr of Sensor/ECM gear from defeating all threats from multiple targets at a fairly cheap price in credit/tonnage.

As it is one ECM Suite, and one Military grade Sensor, and a decent operator, can defeat/affect a much larger MCr/Tonnage/crew investment in offensive systems.

I admit my ideas need some serous work..but the idea seems sensible.I am not as good at the number crunching as some of the other guys around here so they might want to weigh in...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The first thing to think about is scale.

In single ship vs. single ship engagements we can get creative.

In small squadron vs. small squadron we have to streamline.

In mass combat we have to radically streamline.

E.g.: If we fight 10 ships vs. 10 ships just the sensor lock rules requires a few hundred roll per round. Since I am lazy, I gave up right there.

I like what you say, you bring up detail that should be addressed. But it can only be used in single ship engagements, and will have to fade away if we fight several ships.

Perhaps it is more a question of pre combat preparation? How close can the pirates get before you detect them?

 

[wbnc]

The first thing to think about is scale.

In single ship vs. single ship engagements we can get creative.

In small squadron vs. small squadron we have to streamline.

In mass combat we have to radically streamline.

E.g.: If we fight 10 ships vs. 10 ships just the sensor lock rules requires a few hundred roll per round. Since I am lazy, I gave up right there.

I like what you say, you bring up detail that should be addressed. But it can only be used in single ship engagements, and will have to fade away if we fight several ships.

Perhaps it is more a question of pre combat preparation? How close can the pirates get before you detect them?

That's what I was trying to deal with with the last suggestion. in larger groups the use of a single role per ship involved, dedicating a number of sensor/ECM units per attempt limits it to a handful of rolls.

10 vs 10 would be 10 rolls at worst....it could also be used for formations of ships, say squadron vs squadron.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Sorry, I was stuck in my prejudice. Single ships = small ships, military ships = squadron to mass combat.

In a combat with several military ships I would simply ignore sensor lock, and let EW take out a fixed amount of missiles. No rolls. I'm lazy.

 

[wbnc]

Sorry, I was stuck in my prejudice. Single ships = small ships, military ships = squadron to mass combat.

In a combat with several military ships I would simply ignore sensor lock, and let EW take out a fixed amount of missiles. No rolls. I'm lazy.

that would greatly simplify things.

 

[phavoc]

Sorry, I was stuck in my prejudice. Single ships = small ships, military ships = squadron to mass combat.

In a combat with several military ships I would simply ignore sensor lock, and let EW take out a fixed amount of missiles. No rolls. I'm lazy.

that would greatly simplify things.

Something else to think about is the TL difference. A TL 15 EW system should be fiendishly effective against TL 12 missile technology. Conversely, a TL 9 missile might be too 'dumb' to be led astray, and thus your expensive equipment may only have a minimal effect.

There does need to be some overall TL differentiation though. Maybe it should be a flat +1 DM applied to all offensive/defensive rolls for the ship? Or perhaps consult a chart and depending on the TL difference you get your DM's that way for the entire combat.

 

[wbnc]

Sorry, I was stuck in my prejudice. Single ships = small ships, military ships = squadron to mass combat.

In a combat with several military ships I would simply ignore sensor lock, and let EW take out a fixed amount of missiles. No rolls. I'm lazy.

that would greatly simplify things.

Something else to think about is the TL difference. A TL 15 EW system should be fiendishly effective against TL 12 missile technology. Conversely, a TL 9 missile might be too 'dumb' to be led astray, and thus your expensive equipment may only have a minimal effect.

There does need to be some overall TL differentiation though. Maybe it should be a flat +1 DM applied to all offensive/defensive rolls for the ship? Or perhaps consult a chart and depending on the TL difference you get your DM's that way for the entire combat.

A boon for having a Higher TL Sensor/ECM system might be in order.

 

[MongooseMatt]

In a combat with several military ships I would simply ignore sensor lock, and let EW take out a fixed amount of missiles. No rolls. I'm lazy.

Along the lines we are thinking of - there will be a lot of abstraction at fleet level.

However, I think we also have a system for fleet manoeuvres as well - watch for this in the next update but one!