Archive through April 11, 2011
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(G) New Systems:
Advanced probe:
Archive through April 11, 2011
So, we have 2 more additions to the advanced probe topic,
Class 3 Probe, a 'Jammer' that would have the probe use its electronic systems to provide some sort of "Jamming signal"... but what exactly?!?! do we treat the probe as "+1 Natural ECM" for all objects inside the same hex as the class 3 probe... (technobauble excuse, the type 3 creates EW signals for analyzing Astrological phenomena.)
Class 4 probe, a long term surveilance system for use by Survey ships (cruisers, survey freighters etc) to study climate and weather patterns on planets. (the Survey cruiser would deposit the device in orbit of a suitable planet, depart for other missions, and return weeks or months later to download the accumulated data.
Combat ability in SFBs might be a probe that only accumulates data on the 32 impulse of each turn, not at the point of closest approach.
ideas? suggestions? improvements?
Class 3 Jammer: Ships if used on a ship it would blind or degrade the ability to lock onto or retain the lock on to any targets for X number if impulses. No ECM adjustment needed use the penalities for no lock on. This would have the most wide spread effects, it could penalize weapons fire, lending EW and other areas. Seeking weapons: it would block the ability to track the target for an X number of impulses at which time the lock on is reestablished, the seeking weapon is not destroyed nor permanantly disabled.
It would be limited to one target.
still putting some more trhought into this.
Ed,
I don't have time to review it now, but will do so this evening.
My concern is that any "soft kill" or even "temporary mission kill" ability such as blinding sensors and/or scanners is banned by the Auto reject rule.
I could be wrong, but there have been many proposals over the years to allow for this kind of rule, (granted many of them proposed by MJC) that have not been approved by the "powers that be".
My opinion is that such a rule might be open to abuse, or have some serious impact on the game structure of the electronic warfare system.
Please note, I'm not opposed to your idea, just trying to point out that it is a very powerful change that might be impossible to balance in the current game rules set.
Jeff that is not a problem. Any potential change needs review. First what is the objective of the rule. In this case as far as ships are concerned is to limit some abilities and expand the tactical possibilitie, say much as the IPG did when it cam out, maybe only the ship portion is worthwhile and the seeking weapon portion is to uncontrollable. One key to remember is that in general ships do have a limited number of probes and power for the mission.
Ed,
I need to review the rules for seeking weapons. If I recall (and I might be in error) a drone that loses lock on, goes inert. its not in a "holding pattern" or in stasis or any such limbo kind of thing, it is removed from play.
I suspect something similar happens with plasma torpedos.
This "temporary loss of lock on" would totally change the way in which the game is played.
But again, I might be in error and not understanding exactly how you see the "jamming probe" functioning in Star Fleet Battles.
Jeff like I said the idea is to degrade the quality of the lockon, where the weapon might not move as expected or the ship might not be able to do certain funcitions because of a degraded lockon. All for a limited period of time.
Ed,
Lock on is rolled for at the beginning of each turn during the Sensor lock on phase (step 4 of the Sequence of play , see rule (B2.2)).
It doesn't normally have an effect during the turn unless one of several specific cases occur. (such as EW in rule D6.3, or planets (rule P2.0) reduce the quality of a lock on, but you rejected ECM adjustments in your post above so I am at something of a loss in understanding what you are trying to communicate.
I do appologize for not "getting it"... perhaps I'm reading more into your idea than I ought to?!?
Hmmm, let's look at that ECM
Is this Equal to a WW (6 ECM plus seeking redirect)
Less powerful than EM (+4 ECM, penatiy to firing ship)
Equal to an ECM/EMP (+3 ECM)
Somewhere in the above spectrum?
Stewart,
I started out suggesting a "+1 natural ECM" bonus for the hex in which the probe is deployed to.
Ed suggested a far more powerful option that "would blind or degrade the ability to lock onto or retain the lock on to any targets for X number of impulses." (edited the word "if" to "of").
even with a limited number of impulses, as Ed had suggested, this is a devastatingly effective proposal, and I fear would materially alter the way SFBs is played.
I have to wonder if any probe has the power available to generate the kind of "spectrum" EW effects as those things you listed.
It certainly would alter the game balance if one ship had such jammer pods available and the other ship didnt (such as any race verses an Orion which have no probes at all).
Wait for the howls from the Orion players, it should be quite something to behold! 
I did not want to suggest just another item that could generate ECM althought as an after thought several races might like it. As far as the Orions, well join a race, pirates in reality dont have the best of everything unless they are a little lucky and have a lot of money.
Granted lockon is rolled for at the beginning of the turn, but it can be effected during various othertimes, breaking lockon with special sensors, retaining or gaining lock on during the cloaking process. Changing the wave lock during the PPD stage to mention a few.
Possible uses as a jammer, hit a scout with one and he has his lockon for funcitions degraded when it cant lend or perform scout funcitions for a period of impulses, meaning he cant protect a critical ship or maybe lend to a critical ship in combat, while the enemy closes.
Hit a ship preparing to fire with one and it would degrade his firing ability, a penalty for some few impulses, much like the IPG does. Hit a ship controlling drones with one and he had a degraded ability to keep them on target, they could possible move away fram the target rather than toward it as long as guided by the ship for the number of impulses. Hit a seeking weapon with one had it has a degradded ability, much like geing controlled by the ship it could move in the wrong direction.
Hit a unit ECM drone, MRS or such and it degrades its ability to lend.
dont like anyof this, its a probe not an all powerfull weapon,its for information gathering
This arguement is starting to resemble a bill in congress with 20 add on items being shoved through with it.
as a weapon why should it be any more powerfull than the use of a probe as a weapon of last resort
ITS A PROBE DAG NUMMIT
Reid,
Its not an argument, for my part I'm trying to understand where Ed is going with his ideas...
I guess part of my problem is the original probes limitations.
that includes really apallingly bad accuracy, limited to range 6, expensive energy cost relative to the value received (namely, 1+1 energy cost over 2 turns, to yeild data points (IIRC 20 points per probe or some such fixed rate)) and as an emergcy weapon, the same bad to hit odds, and 2+2 energy arming costs for 2 turns to get a measly 8 damage point weapon warhead.
Now Ed seems to suggest (Ed, please correct me if I am stating this wrongly!) that the "Jamming Pod" somehow has the ability to (perhaps?!?) block seeking weapons control channels, or degrade (limit?!) lock on during a turn for a limited number of impulses, or even limit the amount of Electronic warfare points that a ECM drone or a MRS could lend to a friendly unit or ship.
I wonder if the Jammer Pod should have the same range and accuracy limits that the original Probe (class 1) has. that would limit how effective the Jammer Pod is (class 3) but it needs more of a limitation IMO. its simply too powerful as I understand it.
For the jammer Drone:
some restrictions
1) can only be targeted into the same hex as firing unit.
2) provides a 1 impulse jamming signal, causing re-roll of lock-on, with a -1 shift. For the firing unit only.
3) Firing unit loses active fire control with the usual delay to be restored.
4) next impulse signal is gone probe removed, and those units that lost lock-on can re-roll to aquire no shift
this will cause it to be a 1 in 6 chance to clear seeking weapons defence. At the cost of active fire control, a single impulse WW. with the benefit of not requireing you to emergency decel.
Well I guess i always asked the question why should it have any weapons capability to begin with? the idea is to give you something to do with it. Your right it is a probe, but for the most part who uses it until its to late.
Jeff the key word is degrade, not block, not break. Say like a UAV you lose visual due to anything and you degrade its ability to hits its target for a period of time. You do not lose lock-on you do not roll to regain. the seeking weapon may not move where you want it to. the weapons firing may be effected.
EW will be effected in that possible a scout will not be able to lend, because of a degraded lockon.
Using a probe might not be the best idea, but it is for sure we will not be able to add a new system to do it. Maybe it should actually be a new use for special sensors.
Again it would allow uses for a system that is not used by most players.
Ed,
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think the problem is you are using the word "degrade" in conjunction with the word "lock on".
Guess my understanding of the term lock on is the problem.
I assumed it to be a binary set of options (either its "on" or "off"), not a tertiary set (On, poor or off).
Even a poor lock on still allows for active fire control... no positive lock on means you can not use Active fire control or a host of other systems (rule D6.0 has the list, if you are interested).
Ed posted:
"Maybe it should actually be a new use for special sensors."
Well, there is a new idea.
I wonder if it could be treated as a detached drogue thingy... maybe as a stationary "special Sensor repeater" where a scout with special sensors could only use its SP on targets in line of sight, but the probe being in a different location might have a different line of sight.
for example, planets block lock on and many direct systems (weapons, tractors transporters...) if the probe were launched up to 6 hexes away, it would have a different line of sight with respect to a nearby planet.
you thus have a scout now with the ability to "look around corners".
Is it worth while? dunno, but it is a different ability.
I guess as far as the degraded idea, I dont see lock on and no lock on as black and white in looking at this idea(the game may see it differently). I see grays especially in the real world(now that might be a big mistake)targeting systems can be degraded, threw natural causes, elctronic jamming. Comment for instance" I dont have a clear electronic signature or a clear radar picture" You see the target, but then not quite. I can keep the weapon on course, but did the target really go to where I thought it did. Example your a cop with your laser out, you point it at the speeding car, you see the car, you know it is speeding, you know it is moving, but because it has a jammer the laser system does not see it. Like I said to this could be something beyond the realm of the probe and might need a different heading.
Ed, you could ask SPP for a ruling on this, but IMO what you are really talking about is Electronic Warfare rules set in SFBs, not D6.0 Sensors and Scanners lock on.
With enough ECM points, you can avoid damage (from Drones and or other seeking weapons (see rule D6.36 effect on seeking weapons: and specifically D6.361 the proximity of detonation table).
That is why Stewart pointed out the list of items that modify ECM (Wild Weasel, Erratic Manuvers, ECM Drones), each item provides an ECM benefit and is the normal manner in which modifications to firing solutions are handled in Star Fleet Battles.
Short of using a Romulan Cloak or some other device (Veil, Mask etc) there isn't any provision for the things that you are talking about.
ED,
(From the Electronic MRB)
(FD5.23) LOSING LOCK-ON: If, after acquiring its target and being
released (F3.42) by the controlling unit to self-guidance,
circumstances cause the drone to be more than twelve hexes from
the target (or the target is outside of the FA arc) at the end of an
impulse, lock-on is lost and the drone becomes inert (i.e., is removed
from play under FD1.7). See (G18.64).
No matter how you approach it, whether the drone itself loses lock-on (even briefly for a couple of impulses) or if the controling ship that launched the drone loses lock-on to the target (even for just one impulse) the drone will go inert.
Well, lets get back to the topic, shall we?
the restated proposal is for several types of probes, all but the original probe being availabe only as commanders options purchases.
the summary of probe types being:
| Type | description |
| 1 | the original probe no changes. |
| 2 | advanced extended range probe(up to 12 hexes) accuracy based on a die 6 roll able to be armed as an anti matter emergency weapon with half the damage potential of a type 1 probe used as a weapon |
| 3 | jammer with some sort of electronic warfare capacity as yet undetermined |
| 4 | extended duration probe functions 1 impulse each turn on the last impulse of each turn for a total of x turns (as yet undetermined) |
comments, suggestions changes?
The type 3 "jammer Pod" might simply be a short duration "White Noise" generater (atleast in terms of Electronic Warfare).
Lets assume, (for discussion) that it has a 2 turn arming cycle, 1 point of energy per turn in a 1+1=2 total power.
Just playing with some numbers here, that is 2 points of power charged for a total of 64 impulses. the possibilities could be related as this:
| ECM value | # impulse duration |
| +2 | 8 |
| +1 | 16 |
the +# of natural ECM would thus be a short duration benefit for a relatively long investment period (2 turns)
If we wanted to make the charge larger, we could increase the value of the natural ECM benefit...
Lets say you invest 2 points of power for 2 turns. that might allow you to "charge" the Jammer Pod with a larger variety of Jammer settings.
| ECM Value | # impulses duration |
| +4 | 8 |
| +3 | 16 |
| +2 | 24 |
| +1 | 32 |
Is this a direction that it would be worth pursuing?
Would this affect only the target or just the hex which the probe squelch/detonate(s) in? (i.e. Would the "white noise" effect travel with a moving target)
Does this effect only happen to the target, or any weapons fire that passes into/through the hex?
Does it affect lending limits? (probably not)
I have a similar thread proposal, 'Sonar' probe, which does the opposite effect. (It produces a +3 ECCM effect against any "non-natural" ECM within a 2-hex radius, causing a "ping" for the targeting ship (only) to have a better lock-on)
I like the second chart however maybe keep the formula for energy used:
[1 point = +1 ECM / 8 impulses].
The way the table looks now, the (+3 ECM / 16 impulses) and (+2 ECM / 24 impulses) would cost about 6 energy instead of 4.
George,
This is a work in progress.
If it were up to me (and again, this is open to comment from others) I'd put limits on it. one being that the center of the effect is the actual probe, I'd guess that it would be non moving and affect all ships and units inside the same hex as the Jammer Probe.
As it would be "natural ECM" then no, it would not affect lending limits.
One thing is, to decide if such "Jammer Pods" could "Stack" natural ECM benefits, or not. My preference would be no, be it one Jammer pod or a hundred, the most benefit at any time would be a single jammer pod. (although, several ships could "relay" pods so that as one jammer pod expired, a new one could be brought "online".)
This is to prevent abuse by players using multiple ships to create a hex where a ship or ships could have a haven from enemy weapons fire.
Maybe we could integrate your "sonar" probe by declaring it a "type 5" in the advanced Probe topic!
The second chart was simply a linear step chart, as each ECM plus droped down by 1, the number of impulses duration stepped up by 8. we could make it any number that people think appropriate, say in 32 impulse steps such as:
| ECM Value | # impulses duration |
| +4 | 32 |
| +3 | 64 |
| +2 | 96 |
| +1 | 128 |
or to illustrate your suggestion:
| ECM Value | # impulses duration | energy cost |
| +4 | 8 | 2+2 |
| +3 | 16 | 1+1 2/3 |
| +2 | 24 | 1+1 1/3 |
| +1 | 32 | 1+1 |
Lots of options.
Again seems everyone wants this to be an Uber probe, able to do damage scan things better and now give ECM
The game already has enough weapons, it has wild weasels and ecm drones
lets just go with one function, SENSOR and Monster intel.
and does SFB have sensor buoys, a small Mine/sattellite which gathers data from a fixed position that survey ships can use to help get data on an area.
Reid,
Chill, check your meds, boy.
try reading the proposal again... these advanced probes are only available as commanders options, and would be paid for out of the same limited funds (in BPV terms, that is) as ECM drones, cloaked Decoys and any other Uber toys.
Also, the Type 4 class probe is YOUR idea.
If you don't like the way I posted it, make a suggestion as to how to phrase it better to your liking.
And I don't understand how cutting the damage in half is some how creating an Uber weapon.