I used to play alot of G13.61 Hidden Movement. It was great fun (for both sides believe it or not).

In an attempt to lessen the cost of this rule (33%!) while still implementing the important parts of it (removing counter from board, exact position unknown without lockon) this rules amendment is proposed;

G13.64 Partial Hidden Movement
The cloaked vessel using partial hidden movement uses all rules as given in G13.61, except for the following;
G13.641 The cloaked target must give an 'estimated range' based on where the cloaked target actually is on the range adjustment factor chart in G13.331. For example; a cloaked target at range 13 from an enemy would announce 'estimated range 11-15' when required to give fire arc facing during impulses 8 and 24 as per G13.612.
G13.642 The bpv adjustment for using partial hidden movement is 20%.

*I'm tempted to drop the surcharge further, to 17%, half of the hiddne surcharge, but I see 3 factors to hidden movement;
-remove counter from board/no exact position without lock
-estimated facing
-no estimated range


Therefore changing the third factor to an actual if not exact range is big change, but only changes 1 of 3 factors, and thus 20% seems about right. That assumes of course that 33% for full hidden is correct, and I'm not convinced it is. See my discussion on this in the 'to ask the question why' topic.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 11:18 am: Edit

Ummm, you do realize that the use of Tactical Information can already the approximate range.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 02:34 pm: Edit

D.17 is optional. Also note that under D17.24, you could simply volunteer more information than required and thus confound the enemy as to what range you are at.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 11:01 am: Edit

You can't "volunteer more info than required". If I played against you and asked step by step, what info I obtained, you can't just throw extra stuff in there.

Kevin M. McCollum

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 11:03 am: Edit

Oh, and hidden movement ISN'T optional?

Just pointing out, if a person wanted to play Hidden Movement, they are going to have to play Tac Info (or I simply don't agree to the hidden movement).

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Well, you might agree to play tac intel, but I never use it for anything more than identifying ships.

And Keven, D17.24 is clear that it is possible to give more than the required response if one volunteers it.

What are you going to do, gag me?

By Stuart C. Brennen (Evlstu) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:05 pm: Edit

If he wants to give you more info. than required, let him do it. It'll just make that much easier to beat him.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Suuuuuuuuuure it will.

Sorry Kevin, I did not mispell your name above on purpose.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 10:53 am: Edit

No problem on the name.

What I would have to do with a player like you is slow the game way down and ask, step by step, starting with Level A, what my sensors picked up. If you chose to be a jackass, I would simply disengage and not play with you again. Simple. You can volunteer what you want but the ships equipment would only get certain data and that is what I would ask for.

Kevin M. McCollum

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Whoah easy there Kevin.

Personally I think using the tac intel rules to get estimated range when you shouldn't be getting any range under hidden cloak is cheesy. If you want to play 'by the rules' so can your opponent.

*Shrug* Chalk it up to 2 rules not working very well together if you like. Its not like I play hidden movement every day. Or every year for that matter.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 05:00 pm: Edit

LOL

I EXPECT my opponent to play by the rules, that is why I expect a certain amount of information and nothing more. And these rules with Hidden Movement (D1732212).

The fact is, I was pointing out, it is pretty easy to get a fairly close approximation of range to a cloaked target, even with hidden movement.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 03:14 am: Edit

*sigh* You want to play by the rules? Fine, I'll volunteer all the info I want above and beyond the required response as under D17.24.

You want to play by the 'spirit' of the rules, as you seem to imply by such claims of 'give me only what my computer would tell me' then also play by the spirit of the hidden movement rules, and stop trying to figure out what the range is when you don't know what the range is.

By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 08:58 pm: Edit

LOL

Better, I will fly around at just above your top speed under cloak, wait ten turns, and declare a victory as you are deemed to have disengaged if you remain under cloak. I have a lot of patience and could play that game all day long.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Why the heck would I stay under cloak that long? I come to a battle to fight.

Anyways, as I was thinking about this dilemma today, it ocurred to me that if you agreed not to look at D17 charts, and just let me give you the proper information as required, you could have your 'exact info as shown on the computer' and I could keep my range secret as well.

That way, we could both have what we want and still be playing within the rules, both in a literal and spiritual sense.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 08:27 pm: Edit

SVC:


Would it be possible to make the attack which come through the L or R firing arcs ( and possibly the RA arc ) against an Orion vessel ( or other vessels with in built stealth based ECM ) to have a different Built in ECM value based on the relative facing ( which arc the damage is comming through ) of the Orion ship.

This could also be performmed based on the shield as #1 and #2,3,5&6 and #4 being the important values.


In this we could have a general rule saying that the ship if attacked through it FA arc would gain +1 ECM to it's natural ECM and -1 to it ECM through the R or L arcs and +0 through the RA arc.
And then with new ships we could list them with this same value or with a more advanced value for better ( more directional ) designs.
We could even beef it up with X1 or X2 ships ( depending on whether or not the BPVs are solidified yet ) getting +2 in the FA -1 in the R and L and +0 in the RA.


I would like to see X2 Orions have a directional value to their stealth but it's actually something that belong to all Orion stealthy ships.

Is it worth the effort to basically rewrite the core rules?
Is it worth the effort for X2 to have a more advanced natural ECM bonus for the Orions?...as a side not I'm considering the possibility that all X2 ships have some inate stealth based on the use of stealth materials in the construction.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 09:00 pm: Edit

The Core of the idea stems from G15.81 and the term "narrow silhouette"

In order for the ship to have the same size class ( and indeed same MC ) there would have to be a elongation of the hull to counter the narrowing.

Hence when the Orion ship is running parrellel a directly to starboard of you ship, it will infact cast a larger area silhouette than it does when comming directly at you ( and assuming the same valume as another ships will in fact cast a larger silhouette than a regular ship ).