Space Combat - Did I miss something?

[Vormaerin]

It really depends on the game you want to play.

Well, I said several pages back that the correct answer is "what makes the best gameplay". And that's probably not the same between different groups. And the game focuses on the things the player can make a difference in. There's no point where "rolling 1000s of dice" is useful gameplay. So the gamemaster is going to determine if the player needs to make a roll and, if so, what that roll will be about and how difficult it is.

All I need to know is that detection is possible in certain parameters or not. I don't think Mongoose's version of the sensor rules is actually very good at that. It has lots of fiddly bits that have vague effects.

I mainly need to know how much difficulty traffic control has in tracking commercial shipping and in spotting smugglers and pirates. And, to a lesser extent, what sort of ranges make sense for ships making interplanetary runs in real space.

Fleet battles should just be a boardgame, imho.

 

[swordtart]

OK, so a battle fleet will detect anything, and detail everything, at Very Distant or even Far range in a round or so, long, long before we get into Distant range and can start shooting?

You just have to engage Virtual Crew and have the computer roll a few thousand dice...

If you like. I would be wondering how many instances of sensor op you could be running simultaneously and how good the virtual Senor Op was, but that is just detail and heavy automation is the most likely scenario. Actual sophont Sensor Ops are going to be be focussed on detailing the objects of interest picked out from the noise by the automated systems. Hopefully those automated systems err on the side of caution and throw anything that isn't unequivocally benign in the "object of interest" list.

I would also be interested in the number of fleet actions that have panned out that way, with an enemy fleet jumping in, both sides immediately identifying all possible targets, and letting loose all munition stores at maximum range. I am sure examples of this style of battle will have been set out in the Imperial Navy Handbook or some such.

For my tiny part of the game, no normal player or peer adversary is instantaneously going to know everything that is out there and like a sail boat passing blissfully ignorant over a pack of sharks in a feeding frenzy, that is probably a darn good thing.

 

[J. L. Brown]

To repeat the quoted text from earlier, ships with good sensors (like those accompanying BBs, for instance, absolutely can tell an asteroid from a ship. They can also detect out to Far (over 5 million kms) with the right sensor options (discussed already: sensor arrays) and a roll (14+) that’s in practice pretty easy for a ship with decent sensors and a skilled operator.

Most of the last couple of pages could have been avoided with this text! Distant range detection with appropriate detail is absolutely to be expected of a military fleet containing BBs.

View attachment 6975

This is at least the fourth time this section of rules has been cited; and it seems you still have not read it. You seem to think it supports your point, when it does the exact opposite. No, Sensors do * NOT * provide 'Minimal' information at 'Very Distant' or 'Far' range; the quoted rules do not say that. The longest range sensors provide 'None' -- that is * NO INFORMATION * at 'Very Distant' and 'Far'. This is explicit in both the Core Rules Update on page 160, and High Guard update on page 26. All Sensors, even the fancy arrays are * OUT OF RANGE * at 'Very Distant' and 'Far' -- that is what 'provides no information' (and 'details available = None') means.

A Sensor can make a detection (put a numbered-but-undescribed blip on a list of thousands of other numbered-and-undescribed blips; and sometimes even the dTonnage is a guess) to out to as far as 'Far' IF the target creates a Jump-flash. Contacts which were previously detected (at shorter ranges, for example) can still continue-to-be (with Formidable rolls) tracked at 'Very Distant and 'Far', but no new information can be gained -- the sensors cannot provide any details, after all. But any contact which is lost cannot be re-acquired at 'Very Distant' or 'Far' unless it creates a Jump-flash, at which point it is gone anyway.

Determining if a blip is a rock or a ship is described in the rules -- the assumption is (given the extremely limited amount of information every sensor can provide) that a blip which is 'active in radio' is a ship. This requires an EM Sensor to provide at least 'Minimal' information, which they cannot do at 'Distant' without the help of an Extension Net, and cannot do under any circumstances at 'Very Distant' or 'Far'.

Ships are not picking out which of a lengthy list of numbered-but-undescribed blips is the enemy warship at 'Distant' range; although someone can make a wild, uniformed guess. But to have any assurance that those weapons were not wasted on a rock with an attached prospecting-beacon requires Active Radar / Lidar providing 'Limited' information -- that is the first time 'shape and structure' can be determined. That happens (with fancy sensor add-ons like an Extended Array) at 'Very Long' range and no further.

 

[Endie]

This is at least the fourth time this section of rules has been cited; and it seems you still have not read it. You seem to think it supports your point, when it does the exact opposite. No, Sensors do * NOT * provide 'Minimal' information at 'Very Distant' or 'Far' range; the quoted rules do not say that. The longest range sensors provide 'None' -- that is * NO INFORMATION * at 'Very Distant' and 'Far'. This is explicit in both the Core Rules Update on page 160, and High Guard update on page 26. All Sensors, even the fancy arrays are * OUT OF RANGE * at 'Very Distant' and 'Far' -- that is what 'provides no information' (and 'details available = None') means.

A Sensor can make a detection (put a numbered-but-undescribed blip on a list of thousands of other numbered-and-undescribed blips; and sometimes even the dTonnage is a guess) to out to as far as 'Far' IF the target creates a Jump-flash. Contacts which were previously detected (at shorter ranges, for example) can still continue-to-be (with Formidable rolls) tracked at 'Very Distant and 'Far', but no new information can be gained -- the sensors cannot provide any details, after all. But any contact which is lost cannot be re-acquired at 'Very Distant' or 'Far' unless it creates a Jump-flash, at which point it is gone anyway.

Determining if a blip is a rock or a ship is described in the rules -- the assumption is (given the extremely limited amount of information every sensor can provide) that a blip which is 'active in radio' is a ship. This requires an EM Sensor to provide at least 'Minimal' information, which they cannot do at 'Distant' without the help of an Extension Net, and cannot do under any circumstances at 'Very Distant' or 'Far'.

Ships are not picking out which of a lengthy list of numbered-but-undescribed blips is the enemy warship at 'Distant' range; although someone can make a wild, uniformed guess. But to have any assurance that those weapons were not wasted on a rock with an attached prospecting-beacon requires Active Radar / Lidar providing 'Limited' information -- that is the first time 'shape and structure' can be determined. That happens (with fancy sensor add-ons like an Extended Array) at 'Very Long' range and no further.

Oh come on. The rules explicitly say in that quote that attacks can be made at Distant range. Which is what we discussed. The extra range bands for detection far beyond that are just icing on the cake.

If your position is now that detection and attacks by opposing fleets can be made distant range then great. The last few pages have achieved agreement.

 

[MonsterX]

This is at least the fourth time this section of rules has been cited; and it seems you still have not read it. You seem to think it supports your point, when it does the exact opposite. No, Sensors do * NOT * provide 'Minimal' information at 'Very Distant' or 'Far' range; the quoted rules do not say that. The longest range sensors provide 'None' -- that is * NO INFORMATION * at 'Very Distant' and 'Far'. This is explicit in both the Core Rules Update on page 160, and High Guard update on page 26. All Sensors, even the fancy arrays are * OUT OF RANGE * at 'Very Distant' and 'Far' -- that is what 'provides no information' (and 'details available = None') means.

I don't think your interventions have been helpful. This is a legitimate and civil discussion about what the RAW means, what is most realistic, and what is best for gameplay and dogmatic assertions about what you think the rules say are not helpful. It's about thinking through the problem, assessing whether the current rules serve our purposes, and if needed proposing better solutions. Since people have different campaigns and different priorities, the solutions might sometimes be different, but it is not about "owning the other side," (there are no sides).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This is at least the fourth time this section of rules has been cited; and it seems you still have not read it. You seem to think it supports your point, when it does the exact opposite. No, Sensors do * NOT * provide 'Minimal' information at 'Very Distant' or 'Far' range; the quoted rules do not say that. The longest range sensors provide 'None' -- that is * NO INFORMATION * at 'Very Distant' and 'Far'. This is explicit in both the Core Rules Update on page 160, and High Guard update on page 26. All Sensors, even the fancy arrays are * OUT OF RANGE * at 'Very Distant' and 'Far' -- that is what 'provides no information' (and 'details available = None') means.

Where do you find the definite information of sensor resolution "None" at Very Distant range?
The Core book only gives "Minimal" for Thermal and Radar at range ≥50 000 km.

HG'22, p22 has this to say (as quoted a few times):

When using these rules, Distant covers ranges up to 300,000km, which is the maximum practical range that attacks can be made. However, it is possible for sensors to reach further in order to detect incoming threats. The following new range bands reflect this.

So, we can attack up to 300 000 km (≈1 ls), but sensors can reach further.
As far as I can tell Very Distant only turns Average sensor tasks into Formidable tasks.

A Sensor can make a detection (put a numbered-but-undescribed blip on a list of thousands of other numbered-and-undescribed blips; and sometimes even the dTonnage is a guess) to out to as far as 'Far' IF the target creates a Jump-flash.

That is not what HG'22, p26 says:

Far (over 5,000,000km): At these ranges, sensors can spot the signature of ships making jumps (inbound or out) and can determine only whether a contact is a ship or other similar-sized astronomical body. In either case, sensors are only able to determine the size of the contact to the nearest 10,000 tons.

It can detect jump flash and other contact. In either case the information is limited, i.e. these are two different cases, so jump flashes are not the only thing we can detect.
Even at Far range we can see the difference between a Broadsword and a Tigress.

Contacts which were previously detected (at shorter ranges, for example) can still continue-to-be (with Formidable rolls) tracked at 'Very Distant and 'Far', but no new information can be gained ...

That is not what HG'22, p77 says:

After initial contact, sensor detection is maintained under most circumstances. However, sensor contact with ships that have stealth may be lost if the range between ships extends by one or more bands during an encounter.

Normally no rolls needed to maintain tracking.



If you don't want sensors to reach too far, just house rule it; I certainly do.
I add the regular to hit range DM to sensor tasks, severely limiting civilian sensor range and making Stealth much more useful. Battle fleets tend to find each other anyway...

 

[swordtart]

Where do you find the definite information of sensor resolution "None" at Very Distant range?
The Core book only gives "Minimal" for Thermal and Radar at range ≥50 000 km.

I think the point is that you get minimal information for thermal and Active RADAR/LIDAR out to the end of Distant Range (which is stated explicitly in HG2022 as 300,000 km. The rule about Very distant makes any sensor checks formidable. There is nothing in the text that explicitly extends the range of any sensor into the Very Distant or Far bands, it does however create an end to the Distant band at which Thermal and Active RADAR/LIDAR can provide minimal infromation. Other publications might have components or modifications that could extend the range of a sensor and that might mean they can be operated in the Very Distant or Far band.

It can detect jump flash and other contact. In either case the information is limited, i.e. these are two different cases, so jump flashes are not the only thing we can detect.

The only specific example of what can be detected at these new range bands is jump flash. Whilst other books might give a definition of the sensor required for that sort of detection, HG2022 doesn't. My reading of the rules is that None means no information can be determined about the target. However you can still detect a suspected presence. Jump flash will tell you if it a ship. If it moves (and you can triangulate on it with sufficient resolution) it may also indicate it is a ship. If it hasn't moved and hasn't just appeared I am not sure how you would be able to differentiate between a ship and other objects.

You still need that formidable check to avoid disregarding the blip as a ghost or otherwise irrelevant object and to get a more comprehensive position (and that hint as to its tonnage). If you get precise location you could in theory engage, but risk wasting ammunition and giving your own position away.

Even at Far range we can see the difference between a Broadsword and a Tigress.

If you succeed in the check you can say it is a ship of some type and that it is n*10,000 DTons. It seems odd that you can tell the difference between a 500,000 Dton ship and a 490,000 Dton ship, but not between a 20 Dton launch and a 5,000 Dton cruiser, but that is RAW.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

Going back to the Torpedo/Missile miss-match, I find doubling the effect from the attack roll before multiplying for salvo size, gives results closer to what one would expect. Kind of a sloppy patch, but it does the trick from a gameplay perspective.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I think the point is that you get minimal information for thermal and Active RADAR/LIDAR out to the end of Distant Range (which is stated explicitly in HG2022 as 300,000 km. The rule about Very distant makes any sensor checks formidable. There is nothing in the text that explicitly extends the range of any sensor into the Very Distant or Far bands, it does however create an end to the Distant band at which Thermal and Active RADAR/LIDAR can provide minimal infromation. Other publications might have components or modifications that could extend the range of a sensor and that might mean they can be operated in the Very Distant or Far band.

I'm afraid you are overestimating the omniscience of the Core book.

As far as the Core book is concerned everything over 50 000 km is Distant range, up to infinity.
Core'22, p160:

According to the Core book sensor detail at 100 000 km, 1 000 000 km, and 10 000 000 km is "Minimal" (for Thermal and Active Radar sensors).

Due to historic reasons (2015-16 beta program), Very Distant and Far was later added in HG.
See: https://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/threads/maximum-range-of-weapons.117984/
The textbox in HG was added in February 2016, when IIRC the Core book was more or less locked.
The Core book does not say anything whatsoever about Very Distant or Far range, because the Core book doesn't know those range bands exist; that is Distant range in the Core book.

Hence the Core book contains no definition of sensor performance at Very Distant range. That absence of evidence should not be seen as evidence of absence of sensor performance at Very Distant range...

HG adds Very Distant range as a subset of Core Distant range and discusses sensor performance at it. The only reasonable conclusion is that sensors actually reach that far.


Ideally that would have been updated in Core'20 or '22, but perfection isn't always attainable.

The only specific example of what can be detected at these new range bands is jump flash. Whilst other books might give a definition of the sensor required for that sort of detection, HG2022 doesn't.

Yes, we can see a Jump flash even at Far range. As that isn't defined anywhere else it was a reasonable place to put it?
This does explicitly not suggest that is the only thing we can see at Far range, as that is one of two cases in the rules text.

My reading of the rules is that None means no information can be determined about the target.

Agreed, but there is no table or text exactly defining sensor information at Very Distant range. There is no rule saying sensor detail is "None" at Very Distant and Far ranges.
That has to be inferred from the text box in HG, saying detection is possible at Very Distant range, hence some information must be available.

HG'22, p26:
Far (over 5,000,000km): At these ranges, sensors can spot the signature of ships making jumps (inbound or out) and can determine only whether a contact is a ship or other similar-sized astronomical body. In either case, sensors are only able to determine the size of the contact to the nearest 10,000 tons.

We are getting information, but restricted to less than normal for "Minimal" (Hot or cold overall + Basic outline) to just a blip and the difference between a ship and a rock (and ±10 000 Dton).

You still need that formidable check to avoid disregarding the blip as a ghost or otherwise irrelevant object and to get a more comprehensive position (and that hint as to its tonnage).

Agreed, and that is a problem for the average Free Trader, but not much of a problem for a decent warship.

If you succeed in the check you can say it is a ship of some type and that it is n*10,000 DTons. It seems odd that you can tell the difference between a 500,000 Dton ship and a 490,000 Dton ship, but not between a 20 Dton launch and a 5,000 Dton cruiser, but that is RAW.

Yes, it's very simplistic, but still quantified so it can actually be used.
The take home is probably that we see no difference between ACSs at Far range.

 

[hopsnbaer]

The following web site gives a great explanation why in real life there aint no stealth in space.

I mention this not for the stealth aspect, but the detection.

Detection - Atomic Rockets

www.projectrho.com

More than reasonable to go with the rules that there is minimal info available out to extreme ranges.

I think the rules are being quite generous in not letting you be identified at extreme ranges.

 

[swordtart]

I'm afraid you are overestimating the omniscience of the Core book.

As far as the Core book is concerned everything over 50 000 km is Distant range, up to infinity.
Core'22, p160:

Yes, I addressed that in my post. Under the core rule book definition you could fire a volley of missiles at a target at infinite range (parsecs even) and it would only be at -6 to hit. This was clearly silly.

HG2022 added new range bands and that changed the extent of Distant. HG2022 did not however extend the Sensor Target table to allow sensors to extend into those new bands. When talking about sensor range it refers you out to the table in the CRB. It allowed formidable sensor checks at Very Distant but you need that regardless of whether your particular sensor has the range to obtain any useful information just to have the basic blip on your screen (exceptional failure means that you don't even detect the object). There may also have been a plan to introduce longer range sensors or add in modifications to extend sensor range (some shorter range sensors got a range increase).

There is no evidence that sensors can provide minimal information at Very Distant and Far, but there is evidence that they can't. The table was not updated to extend them to include Very Distant and Far. The Distant band was explicitly bounded at 300,000 km. The section discussing them says you can't determine anything but rough tonnage. You need active sensors to get a positive fix so thermal can't help even within Distant range.

Should it be revisited, absolutely. Much of the text discusses ranges like they are absolute values rather than bands of distance. EM is an odd term as all sensors are EM since they all detect electromagnetic radiation of one sort or another The existence of radiation does not equate to an ability to detect it nor an ability to interpret it and the inverse square law applies. If you cannot reach an enemy ship with a laser weapon how does active LIDAR reach it. What the heck is passive LIDAR anyway? Lots of questions that ideally would have been answered in HG.

 

[NOLATrav]

Love me some ProjectRho.

Traveller ships don’t use heat sinks and IIRC none of the stealth options discuss venting or redirecting heat signatures. So IMTU I use Power Plant output as +DM for detection and tracking. None of this “not sure if it’s a space rock or a ship” BS.

Doesn’t matter if it’s 5,000 km or 5,000,000 km away, even a small ship that is coasting with only life support functioning still has a Power output signature in the form detectable heat. So you know it’s a ship out there because Thermal/IR sensors can see them just like they can see stars and gas giants.

So the drama isn’t really in detection, it’s in the choice you make looking at your cluttered detection screen… which of these are regular traffic?… which are threats?…

 

[AnotherDilbert]

HG2022 added new range bands and that changed the extent of Distant.

Yes, that is the crux of the matter, but no, it didn't change Core.
Very Distant and Far was added in HG'16, after Core'16 was (more or less) finished.

There is no evidence that sensors can provide minimal information at Very Distant and Far, but there is evidence that they can't.

Totally disagree:

HG'22, p26:
When using these rules, Distant covers ranges up to 300,000km, which is the maximum practical range that attacks can be made. However, it is possible for sensors to reach further in order to detect incoming threats. The following new range bands reflect this.

"When using these rules", i.e. optional, for specific purposes.
Attack can be made at up to 300 000 km, but sensors can see further.

This is a direct contradiction to your point.

The section discussing the them says you can't determine anything but rough tonnage.

Yes, at Far range, but not Very Distant. At Very Distant we can apparently get more information.
As no limitation or restriction is given, presumably as much as at Distant:

HG'22, p26:
When using these rules, Distant covers ranges up to 300,000km, which is the maximum practical range that attacks can be made. However, it is possible for sensors to reach further in order to detect incoming threats. The following new range bands reflect this.

Very Distant (up to 5,000,000km): All Electronics (sensors) checks become Formidable (14+).

No limited information, just a more difficult check.

All it says, effectively, is that the average Free Trader can't see at Very Distant, but decent warships can.

 

[swordtart]

Totally disagree:

"When using these rules", i.e. optional, for specific purposes.
Attack can be made at up to 300 000 km, but sensors can see further.

This is a direct contradiction to your point.

"Sensors can see further" is not a direct contradiction of my point that there is no evidence that "Minimal" information can be obtained from sensors beyond Distant.

If it said "... but sensors can obtain "minimal" information at Very Distant but it requires a formidable check" then that would be a direct contradiction (but if it said that we wouldn't need to be discussing it).

Yes, at Far range, but not Very Distant. At Very Distant we can apparently get more information.

But what that information might be is not specified it is just more than jump flash and apparently a vague tonnage.

If there was a generic rule that allowed to you make out of range Sensor Checks at higher difficulty (which is not a bad idea) then it would have a context, but instead the amount of information decreases with range bands regardless of the ease you can make the skill check. If you make the check you get the type of information appropriate to that sensor at that range band no more no less. Obviously if you fail the check then you get nothing at all.

As no limitation or restriction is given, presumably as much as at Distant:

As you say, that is your assumption.

No limited information, just a more difficult check.

With sensors difficulty does not alter the type of information you get at a particular range.

"All Electronics (sensors) checks become Formidable (14+)." That sentence will apply to the check to determine if one of those random blips you see on your scope is a real object or a ghost image. It does not need to imply any increase in sensor range for it to have a purpose for being in the rules.

You are solely focussing on the information in the side bar (and reading into it more than is actually RAW). If you apply "All Electronics (sensors) checks become Formidable (14+). to the Initial Detection rules on P76-77 then you will see that you can have to make check to differentiate blips. If you fail that check you cannot differentiate, regardless of the range of your sensors.

"Without closer inspection, detailed system charts or communication with other spacecraft in the vicinity, it can be difficult to determine the exact nature of many objects."

"...should one ship need to approach another for boarding or to engage in combat, more precise information is required. To obtain this level of information, the ship’s sensop must make an Average (8+) Electronics (sensors) check (1D minutes, EDU), adding DMs listed in the Initial Detection table and DMs for the type of sensors being used, as described under Install Sensors on page 21."

This is for distant and closer for Very Distant the check becomes formidable. You will note that the range of the specific sensors is not a factor in this part of the detection mechanics. You get a DM for the level of sensor (improved, Military etc.) and you get DMs for the circumstances. If your ship is running silent (or indeed is a wreck) you still get to make the check so it is not specific type of sensor check (e.g. Thermal), it is more a holistic check using all sensors and probably analytical software (i.e. anything that gives a DM).

"Success indicates that the data collected by the sensop is enough to pinpoint the location of the ship, whereupon the ship’s captain can decide whether to allow an approach or engage in space combat. Failure indicates that the location of the ship (or even that it is a ship) cannot be accurately determined. Exceptional failure means the object is not detected at all or just assumed to be some inert object such as a planetoid,
defunct satellite or space junk."

So doesn't provide the information given by a specific sensor at specific range, it just tells you exactly where it is and confirms whether it is a ship or not. If you want more information you need to move to a range where your specific sensors can detect that sort of thing. If you fail the check you don't even get an accurate position or know if it is a rock or a ship so changing the check from Average to Formidable is a significant effect.

None of the words in the sidebar require the range you can get "minimal" information from a specific sensor to be extended beyond that given in the CRB.

If you want to do that it is your house rule. It is not RAW and I am not convinced it is even RAI based on the rules set out in Initial Detection and given there have been a number of revisions of both the CRB* and HG since 2016 and none of them have stated that Thermal or LIDAR/RADAR provide minimal information to Very Distant. Had this been RAI I would have expected it to have made the cut.

Unless you are willing to also discuss the words on p76-77 then there is no point continually rehashing the same old statements about what the words in the sidebar might mean since I think the context is critical.

*I am using CRB 2022 and HG 2022.

 

[Endie]

"Sensors can see further" is not a direct contradiction of my point that there is no evidence that "Minimal" information can be obtained from sensors beyond Distant.

If it said "... but sensors can obtain "minimal" information at Very Distant but it requires a formidable check" then that would be a direct contradiction (but if it said that we wouldn't need to be discussing it).

But what that information might be is not specified it is just more than jump flash and apparently a vague tonnage.

If there was a generic rule that allowed to you make out of range Sensor Checks at higher difficulty (which is not a bad idea) then it would have a context, but instead the amount of information decreases with range bands regardless of the ease you can make the skill check. If you make the check you get the type of information appropriate to that sensor at that range band no more no less. Obviously if you fail the check then you get nothing at all.

As you say, that is your assumption.

With sensors difficulty does not alter the type of information you get at a particular range.

"All Electronics (sensors) checks become Formidable (14+)." That sentence will apply to the check to determine if one of those random blips you see on your scope is a real object or a ghost image. It does not need to imply any increase in sensor range for it to have a purpose for being in the rules.

You are solely focussing on the information in the side bar (and reading into it more than is actually RAW). If you apply "All Electronics (sensors) checks become Formidable (14+). to the Initial Detection rules on P76-77 then you will see that you can have to make check to differentiate blips. If you fail that check you cannot differentiate, regardless of the range of your sensors.

"Without closer inspection, detailed system charts or communication with other spacecraft in the vicinity, it can be difficult to determine the exact nature of many objects."

"...should one ship need to approach another for boarding or to engage in combat, more precise information is required. To obtain this level of information, the ship’s sensop must make an Average (8+) Electronics (sensors) check (1D minutes, EDU), adding DMs listed in the Initial Detection table and DMs for the type of sensors being used, as described under Install Sensors on page 21."

This is for distant and closer for Very Distant the check becomes formidable. You will note that the range of the specific sensors is not a factor in this part of the detection mechanics. You get a DM for the level of sensor (improved, Military etc.) and you get DMs for the circumstances. If your ship is running silent (or indeed is a wreck) you still get to make the check so it is not specific type of sensor check (e.g. Thermal), it is more a holistic check using all sensors and probably analytical software (i.e. anything that gives a DM).

"Success indicates that the data collected by the sensop is enough to pinpoint the location of the ship, whereupon the ship’s captain can decide whether to allow an approach or engage in space combat. Failure indicates that the location of the ship (or even that it is a ship) cannot be accurately determined. Exceptional failure means the object is not detected at all or just assumed to be some inert object such as a planetoid,
defunct satellite or space junk."

So doesn't provide the information given by a specific sensor at specific range, it just tells you exactly where it is and confirms whether it is a ship or not. If you want more information you need to move to a range where your specific sensors can detect that sort of thing. If you fail the check you don't even get an accurate position or know if it is a rock or a ship so changing the check from Average to Formidable is a significant effect.

None of the words in the sidebar require the range you can get "minimal" information from a specific sensor to be extended beyond that given in the CRB.

If you want to do that it is your house rule. It is not RAW and I am not convinced it is even RAI based on the rules set out in Initial Detection and given there have been a number of revisions of both the CRB and HG since 2016 and none of them have stated that Thermal or LIDAR/RADAR provide minimal information to Very Distant.

Unless you are willing to also discuss the words on p76-77 then there is no point continually rehashing the same old statements about what the words in the sidebar might mean since I think the context is critical.

You're having to ignore the very explicit and entirely clear text quoted at you every time to keep this going. It's OK to find out something new from the rules. I have, in this thread, too.

 

[swordtart]

You're having to ignore the very explicit and entirely clear text quoted at you every time to keep this going. It's OK to find out something new from the rules. I have, in this thread, too.

I don't think I have ignored anything. I read the rules and the posts and didn't come to same conclusion. I read the rules when it was in the book as well. Reposting it time and time again does not change the words. Your interpretation may be different.

Accepting your interpretation requires me to understand and accept your reason for coming to that interpretation. So far nothing anyone has said has caused me to reconsider how I think the rules work. I have identified where there are rules that I believe contradict the idea that sensors magically gain the ability to provide "Minimal" information at Very Distant range. I have seen no rule cited where it explicitely says that. I probably would have found it myself by now because searching a PDF is fairly trivial.

You are not required to agree with me. I do not need "saving" from my opinion. You don't need to convince me of your interpretation you could just ignore the thread or my comments on it.

Instead you wasted electrons reposting my lengthy post wholesale and then just added a snark at the end. If you have nothing useful to add, why make the thread longer?

You are normally better than this, so I don't want to ignore you.

It is possible that I missed the quote in the splurge this thread created. Please can you cite the book and page reference where there is "explicit and entirely clear text" that says that a sensor provides minimal information at Very Distant range.

 

[Endie]

I don't think I have ignored anything. I read the rules and the posts and didn't come to same conclusion. I read the rules when it was in the book as well. Reposting it time and time again does not change the words. Your interpretation may be different.

Accepting your interpretation requires me to understand and accept your reason for coming to that interpretation. So far nothing anyone has said has caused me to reconsider how I think the rules work. I have identified where there are rules that I believe contradict the idea that sensors magically gain the ability to provide "Minimal" information at Very Distant range. I have seen no rule cited where it explicitely says that. I probably would have found it myself by now because searching a PDF is fairly trivial.

You are not required to agree with me. I do not need "saving" from my opinion. You don't need to convince me of your interpretation you could just ignore the thread or my comments on it.

Instead you wasted electrons reposting my lengthy post wholesale and then just added a snark at the end. If you have nothing useful to add, why make the thread longer?

You are normally better than this, so I don't want to ignore you.

It is possible that I missed the quote in the splurge this thread created. Please can you cite the book and page reference where there is "explicit and entirely clear text" that says that a sensor provides minimal information at Very Distant range.

Ah, if you've narrowed down your objection very specifically to an explicit reference to Minimal then it becomes more tricky, because there's an editing error in the explicit reference and the part where it is explained clearly just takes this for granted!

So the editing error first (HG 22, p55):

"By using multiple hull-mounted arrays in an integrated computer-controlled arrangement, it is possible to increase the effective antenna size and range of a sensor suite. EM and active radar/lidar can then detect objects at Distant range [sic] and passive radar/lidar at Long range."

But active radar/lidar was already able to provide minimal info at distant range.



Presumably, this is meant to shift this to Very Distant range (otherwise it provides no benefit to that sensor type), but they messed up, so I entirely admit it isn't explicit. Note that this is different from the Extension net, which provides better detail within existing ranges. The fact that they meant to extend this to new ranges is again implicit (not explicit) in the sidebar (repeatedly posted, so I'll refrain) on p.26.

In summary, I would content that there is no good faith reading of the sidebar on p.26 that can deny that two (non-stealthy*) BS fleets at very distant range can see each other, given the sort of sensor platforms described in the rules and a realistic presumption of the skill and number of sensor operators they'd have. And that is what this admittedly over-long and meandering discussion was about.

PS You complain about "snark" in my post, but none existed: read it with good faith. I have learned from this thread since I had somehow missed entirely the sidebar that explains the new capability of active sensors to detect minimal (outline and ship vs natural) entirely! I freely admit that I have left the discussion with changed opinions, and that I was initially wrong. Later sections of your post contain two sentences of kinda defensive stuff followed by three sentences of absolute, outright "snark", as you put it. As you were kind enough to say of me, I too enjoy your posting so wouldn't dream of blocking you over it**, but do consider the beam in your eye before operating on others.

*Given the penalties involved - and the benefits to be gained - from even basic stealth coatings I cannot imagine that major fleets would not use stealth liberally. Just to meme this thread, it allows vast, unanswerable torpedo volleys to be delivered which would then force a defender to make hard decisions about target priority if the fleets closed to closer range as the fight continued, for instance.

**I only block two people on this forum, one of whom is a genuinely nasty piece of work, and appears to be serving his second ban in the last few months, and the other of whom is a harmless, white noise idiot who posts so constantly as to be impossible to ignore without software help.

 

[Condottiere]

According to Robots, torpedoes are like Energizer Bunnies.

They can keep going twice as long as missiles.

And are as tenacious as bloodhounds.

If they take a beeline as the crow flies, at some point, they cross from distant, to far distant.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Has anyone posted sensor use clarification on the HG update thread as of yet?

 

[swordtart]

Ah, if you've narrowed down your objection very specifically to an explicit reference to Minimal then it becomes more tricky, because there's an editing error in the explicit reference and the part where it is explained clearly just takes this for granted!

So the editing error first (HG 22, p55):

"By using multiple hull-mounted arrays in an integrated computer-controlled arrangement, it is possible to increase the effective antenna size and range of a sensor suite. EM and active radar/lidar can then detect objects at Distant range [sic] and passive radar/lidar at Long range."

But active radar/lidar was already able to provide minimal info at distant range.

I had noted that the effect on active RADAR/LIDAR was nil but that could also be explicitly confirming there was no additional benefit to active RADAR/LIDAR. The problem with supposed editing errors is that if it is an error you often do not know which way it was supposed to go and unless the error has been confirmed as such then it might just be clumsy writing. In this case it could just be saying that now both EM and active RADAR/LIDAR can detect objects at Distant range.

Presumably, this is meant to shift this to Very Distant range (otherwise it provides no benefit to that sensor type), but they messed up, so I entirely admit it isn't explicit. Note that this is different from the Extension net, which provides better detail within existing ranges. The fact that they meant to extend this to new ranges is again implicit (not explicit) in the sidebar (repeatedly posted, so I'll refrain) on p.26.

The extension net is however explicitly limited to sensors that already provide Full or Limited information. It does not increase the range of minimal information. I see no contradiction in extending something that had Limited information at Distant into Full at Distant and Limited at Very Distant. There is however no such sensor.

In summary, I would content that there is no good faith reading of the sidebar on p.26 that can deny that two (non-stealthy*) BS fleets at very distant range can see each other, given the sort of sensor platforms described in the rules and a realistic presumption of the skill and number of sensor operators they'd have. And that is what this admittedly over-long and meandering discussion was about.

I would agree that BS fleets at very distant range can see one another, but I don't think you need to extend the range of sensors for that to be the case, primarily because they introduce a lot of new objects into space which can be detected at Very Distant under the Initial Detection rules.
a) If they jumped in they would have been detected at Far range by the jump flash and that also allows an estimate of size. If we are talking several 10,000+ DTon ships jumping in synchronised there is very little alternative interpretation than it is a battle fleet. If you are not expecting your own battle fleet then it stands to reason this is an enemy fleet and hostile intent is a fair first guess.
b) If you just happened to move within Very Distant range of a fleet that was already in position you just need to make Formidable sensor checks to identify if those objects that just got added to your plot are ships or astronomical bodies. If you were already in sector you will likely already have catalogued everything else so your check is focussed on the new stuff. I agree with you that in a fleet action there are probably at least a few sensor ops* that could regularly make such checks and any object would be subject to extensive scrutiny until it was unequivocally identified as a non-ship or friendly.
c) If you were the fleet jumping in then things might be a little more difficult since you probably don't have comprehensive information about every astronomical object within Very Distant range yet. I would presume that SOPs would be to focus on the closest stuff first as it will take many rounds before that a Very Distant maybe-threat is actually in range to do anything. This might not take that long through in actuality because of Virtual Crew.

Virtual Crew can easily spam the checks. It only costs only 1 extra band-width for each extra 5 Sensor Ops. Even small fleet supports can likely run 100 virtual sensor ops (15 bandwidth basic plus 19 for the extra instances). Even Virtual Crew Level 2 is pretty cheap compared to the cost of the ship itself. As far as I am aware you only pay for the software once regardless of how much bandwidth you apply to use it.

Virtual Crew(2) operating as Electronics(Sensor)-2 is likely not the highest skill in the fleet (and probably won't be able to benefit from every DM a sophont can leverage) and therefore probably won't always succeed at a Formidable check (unlike expert systems I see nothing that prevents Virtual Crew at any level attempting formidable checks), but you have several hundred virtual sensor ops and you know if you failed to identify an object you can just add it back into the stack of things to be checked (or flag it up to one of the flesh bags to resolve). A fleet working together (and fleet sensor operations will be well drilled) could be checking tens of thousands of objects each round and if only 10% of those checks succeed they will still be able to map that entire zone in a few rounds. Any ships (especially a battle ship) will therefore be easily detected (and unless they are sending friendly transponders pings) they will also be identified as hostile and become subject to greater scrutiny.

Actual formal identification, and exact positioning for targetting would still need for you to be in sensor range of an active sensor. Since you can't attack at Very Distant range then you have plenty of time to identify the target and if the other fleet has hostile intent then standing off at Very Distant isn't going to achieve anything. Interestingly on the Sensor Operator section of the crew duties (HG p97 onward) it only mentions the type of information provided by specific sensors with respect to exploration activity.
"Under more peaceful circumstances, a sensop might be employed with the task of examining sensor data to gain more information about near-space objects. " HG p98
Hostilities seem to be covered by the Initial Detection mechanic (for which specific sensor qualities seem to be irrelevant) and once you have the ships position it is locked in unless it is a stealthy ship changing range bands.

PS You complain about "snark" in my post, but none existed: read it with good faith.

Apologies, maybe I read it the wrong way. I also didn't intend any snark in my reply, so I guess we can both "put up our swords"