Sensor Options - February Update

[Nerhesi]

We just need some clarity here.

a) So Countermeasures and Military Counter Measures say the "suite grants DM +X to all attempts blah blah regardless of the usual DM the sensor suite is attached to"

To me, this indicate that basically you get that +4 or +6 instead of whatever you had. So far so good. This of course only applies to jamming missiles and BREAKING lock-ons and so on (electronic warfare).

b) Enhanced Signal Processing grants "DM +4 to all sensor related checks". Is this, like the above instead of whatever you had? So basically, is this a +4 TOTAL to lock ons and detections, or is it a +4 ontop of the possible +2 from the advanced sensors you may have?

 

[madmike]

How about what tech level the Countermeasures Suite is actually first made available. That needs to be answered first.

 

[Nerhesi]

How about what tech level the Countermeasures Suite is actually first made available. That needs to be answered first.

Thats a missing typo and not a huge deal - TL 13 and 15 for the countermeasure suites

 

[Nerhesi]

How about what tech level the Countermeasures Suite is actually first made available. That needs to be answered first.

Thats a missing typo and not a huge deal - TL 13 and 15 for the countermeasure suites

 

[MongooseMatt]

b) Enhanced Signal Processing grants "DM +4 to all sensor related checks". Is this, like the above instead of whatever you had? So basically, is this a +4 TOTAL to lock ons and detections, or is it a +4 ontop of the possible +2 from the advanced sensors you may have?

I am thinking in addition...

DMs need to come down (+1/+2)?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

DMs need to come down (+1/+2)?

All sensor/CM DMs are kind of large [-4,+6]. EnhancedSP is the same tonnage but twice the cost of basic CM that have the same DM, so not totally out of scale. Note that ImprovedSP comes with a big disadvantage, if the added DM is only +1 it might not be worth it at all.

But military ships will use EnhancedSP anyway if the DM is halved, for a big ship it is basically a free DM.

 

[Nerhesi]

Here is the balance of mods now for jamming/lockons:

Positive:
Enhanced SP +4

Negative:
Military CM +6
Emission absorption +2
Stealth +4 (and TL difference)


For Detection you drop the military CM bonus

Regardless of additive or not Matt, you may want to drop the counter measure bonus by 2 (so it's +2 and +4)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You always use ( Sensor DM or Countermeasures DM ) + SignalProcessing DM as far as I have understood it.

Sensor Lock is a simple check (can't use Countermeasures DM, of course).
Breaking Lock or Jamming is an opposed check.

 

[Nerhesi]

You always use ( Sensor DM or Countermeasures DM ) + SignalProcessing DM as far as I have understood it.

Sensor Lock is a simple check (can't use Countermeasures DM, of course).
Breaking Lock or Jamming is an opposed check.

Yup - thats why I think we can make sensor lock a simple opposed roll - it saves on the rolling. You can assume no one will want you to have a sensor-lock on them. So may as well just have it as an opposed check and save yourself one roll.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Won't save any roll, you will still want to roll to break lock every round until you succeed.

 

[Nerhesi]

Won't save any roll, you will still want to roll to break lock every round until you succeed.

No you save dozens of rolls if not more when it comes to fleet combat. You save 1 roll from every 2. It's massive.

Current system:
a) Want lock-on? Initial Simple roll. Whether it is a new target or a target that broke lock-on from the previous round. This roll is required.
b) Target wants to break your lock-on (whether new or re-acquired) - opposed roll.

This is 2 rolls with the #1 roll being trivial/not required.

Proposed system:
a') You want to establish or re-establish a lock-on? Opposed roll from the get-go.

Therefore - you save at least half the rolls you need today. The half is near useless because it is an unopposed roll with positive modifiers massively overpowering negative modifiers.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Or the even simpler system of ignoring Sensor Lock for squadron combat. Even 10 ships on each side where every ship tries to lock on to every enemy ship is 200 rolls per turn, way too much.

 

[Nerhesi]

Or the even simpler system of ignoring Sensor Lock for squadron combat. Even 10 ships on each side where every ship tries to lock on to every enemy ship is 200 rolls per turn, way too much.

Oh for squadron combat - yeah we need an abridged method I would think.

But even for 2 on 1 adventure class - that is:

2 Locks on attempts on from side A.
2 Opposed checks to maintain lock from side A.

1 lock one from each of the two ships from side B. (2 rolls).
1 opposed check to maintain lock from each ship on side B (2 rolls).

8 rolls for 3 ships in combat. If we could make it to simply 3 rolls (3 opposed rolls), would be a lot easier, Opposed roll to determine who gets a lock on who.