Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through October 05, 2022	25		10/17 09:12pm
	Archive through December 06, 2022	25		12/07 08:35am

Reason why scanners and Sensors are basically static - diminishing returns. You spend X credits to improve the system by Y%, the next X adds Y/2%, third adds Y/4% ...

At some point you don't get enough improvement to be worth the cost ...

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 - 10:00 pm: Edit

A thought...

Talk to the folks you game with.

I can imagine a simple scenario, perhaps a small squadron action (for some reason, 550 BPV comes to mind... ) with one ship having an extra Sensor box with a "7" in it.

First one player has that advantage, then play again with the same forces, except the other player has the extra sensor point.

Do the same thing with the -1 Scanner box. Two battles, one with one player having one ship with the advantage, the other with the other player.

See what are the results from those fights. Might be a way to see why ADB, Inc. doesn't do those, or it may be a way to add to the universe.

(If nothing else, to quote a line from C4, it'll get you the keys to the simulator... )

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Wednesday, December 07, 2022 - 12:00 am: Edit

Stewart, from the end of the early era to (I don't have the current edition of X-ship rules, but don't remember their Scanners and Sensors improving) the edge of current tech, the cost analysis rings a little hollow. Give the best gear you can afford is a staple of armed forces, its an absolute truth of military spending, the best gear from the lowest bidder. Thing is, detection, targeting, and surveillance is one place everyone chases the nines. Going after all those nines after the decimal point as it were. In 80 years there is not some improvement with a whole galaxy of eggheads?

I could accept that that it were 'abstracted out' via software patches and incremental instrumentation upgrades that fall short of a formal refit, I could accept that not that I would like it.

A Terran Warp Refitted Frigate (WFF) built in Y62 has the same Scanner and Sensor abilities of a Federation Battle Frigate (FFB) built 113 years later! Stipulated, the later does have more boxes in the track, but the 'best' is still the same.

A WWI US Clemson class, four stack Destroyer could train its guns at a modern US Zumwalt class Destroyer and theoretically even score hits, but The Zumwalt would have a massive radar advantage and weapons range advantage over it. (nevermind that one class was tested in war and the newer hasn't been, just assume the weapons work the way the salesmen promised) That's the meat in this WHY sandwich.

Jeff Anderson, that's how we fix the problem, if in deed there is one. Your getting ahead of me. I'm wanting to know why the Architect set the floor and ceiling where they did. After I get the keys to the house, there is no reason I can't go buy a sawzall.

Sadly, the folks I game with are effectively you fine people on this board that let me bounce my ideas off of, and a few brave souls over at SFBOL. Its hard to find players when your home for 48 hours and gone for 12 days, the honeydo list alone is sometimes more than 24 hours.

I will gently remind folks, I'm asking WHY, not how to fix a (perceived) failing. In effect I'm wondering if sticking to a base 6 probability count (d6) was something deeper or shallower at play. The sort of thing that makes the designer's brilliance so bright one can't see anything but the shine.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, December 07, 2022 - 12:27 am: Edit

The first-generation X-rules were substantially revised in Captain's Log #23; these revisions were further expanded upon in Module X1R and properly integrated into the X-rule portion of the 2012 SFB Master Rulebook:

---

Quote:

(XD6.34) EW Effect: Due to their advanced fire control, if an X-ship has more ECCM than its target’s ECM, it gets a special -1 modifier to its fire. This modifier obeys all rules relating to negative shifts (i.e., it may not cause a column shift for a phaser). This is cumulative with legendary gunner but not with an outstanding crew.
(XD6.393) EW Limit: X-ships no longer receive two “free” ECCM. Instead, they may generate EW (total ECM and/or ECCM) up to their sensor rating plus two.

---

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, December 07, 2022 - 08:35 am: Edit

There ARE active scanners/ sensors. They are called Special Sensors.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, December 07, 2022 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Also, the inferiority of Early Years sensor/scanner suites in the Alpha Octant manifests in other ways: be it in the reduced amount of ECM and/or ECCM which it can generate under (YD6.31); in the degree of Tactical Intelligence it can acquire under (YD17.0); in the reduced effectiveness of special sensors under (YG24.0); and so on and so forth.

Plus, there is the degree to which a ship's seeking weapon control capacity is affected by the presence (or absence) of seeking weapons installed, under (F3.2). To include empire-specific instances where a given fleet is noted as installing an upgrade in this manner; such as the Federal Republic of Aurora going from one-half of their sensor rating to equal their sensor rating in Y182 under (OR17.R2), in response to their improved miniaturization of shuttle bomb technology in that same year under (OJ5.112).

And there are cases where, even for an empire which appears to use the "standard" (or, at least, "standard" for the region of space it is operating in) fire control rules on the surface, there is enough of a difference "under the hood" to enable the integration of aim-improving support systems - such as the Iridani Questors' use of target illuminators under (OG12.0), or the Uthiki Harmony's use of target acquisition gear under (MD3.0) - which are unique to that empire.

In other words, the sensor and/or scanner tracks on a given SSD are only part of the overall picture of what a given ship in a given era (or area of known space) has (or does not have) in terms of its detection, tracking, and fire control capabilities.