Author Topic: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?  (Read 6185 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2008, 01:13:06 AM »
 I agree and that was my orrigonal thought of having large ship be the main FTL ship and quite a lot of non-ftl ships for attacking/bombarment. On the asteroids I would mount some engines, basic sensors and a good computer to follow directions form the command and control ship. But as you know the farther you get away from the CnC ship they will have to do with time lag and hopefully the computer can handle some of the problems.

 It has been some time since I read HH but I think they are like Traveller 2300 ftl drives. I can not remember there name right now and if I have a chance I will look it up tomorrow in Fire Fusion and Steel. And T2300 knows the drives are very good and put a limiting factor on them so they are not super drives.

MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline Oldgrue

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2008, 07:34:04 AM »
CNC lag still can be handled by ship to ship laser.  Our own modern technology is working on 1.5 million kilometer laser communications.  A web of ship to ship lasers could easily relay data back and forth with minimal lag.

Offline Fidoric

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 362
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2008, 08:16:14 AM »
And quantum comms will nullify that problem.
Now there's a plan : we go there, we blast him, we come back...
Fighters forever !
Heart of steel.

Offline RandalThor

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,116
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2008, 04:00:41 PM »
And that quantum comm could also help negate the "not being able to find" the enemy spacecraft. To assume that we will be unable to locate the enemy is the same as assuming we will be able to determine the blood type of the guy on E-deck, section 2345HG from 12 parcecs out. But, in all the games (SM no exception) they give you sensors to detect the enemy. So the way they fight will have to take that into concideration. Which means, that for the most part, he with the best sensors wins. Of course, you can have all the sensors you want, but if you have no weapons to use them with you are SOL. (I guess you could be like a forward observer for spaceship artillery - I hope you have good stealth/armor.  :D)
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Scratch that. Power attracts the corruptible.

Rules should not replace the brain and thinking.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2008, 05:58:04 PM »
 Sensors is one area I would loved to see developed more for SM:P or SM2. I have thought many times about trying to work a conversion of T3's/T4's sensors from FF&S into SM. But I have not thought of a good way to do it since many of the sensors use surface area to increase the resolution and that is not tracked in SM2 or SM:P ship/vehicle construction.

 As for combat at what range sensors can pick out blob vs ship vs probable ship armamant vs etc. Is IMO a big factor in how combat and combat tactics are played out as everyone above has stated and has been proven in the past.

 The past posts have brought to mind when I was playing in a Con in San Diego in which a few USA Navy personal were there getting their Game On. They really exelled at the 3-D space combat and other 3-D games. In fact I would not be suprised if the USA Navy did not have a group to play these games for recruiting. I can just see the tag line, " US Navy Competative Gamers Assocation. Give us your Geeks and we will put them in tomorrows seat's". Or something like that since geek no long has such a bad rep.

MDC   
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline Oldgrue

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2008, 08:41:08 AM »
Harpoon does that to you.
Instead of surface area, use mass for your sensors.

Sensors also can look at passive EM radiation as well.  That reactionless drive is still putting out energy for thrust, even if its not fountaining heat and matter of some sort.  Open weapons ports have to be emitting some low level energy for sensitive equipment.   Use of active/passive sensors can be part of your battleplan.

What are the goals of said attack?

Offline kedrake

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Land of Osmar
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2008, 09:24:07 AM »
The problem with fleet actions are that the harder SF we go, the closer to submarine battles and picket lines we get.

A starship is awfully hard to find in general.  We have a celestially miniscule object that observers need to perform no small amount of searching for.

Thermographic searches are still line of sight based, and relatively short ranged.
Energy emissions are subject to a farraday cage type effect, and high-frequency lasers need to be interrupted to be detected.


Well, here is ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW:

Space is vast, but mostly empty. Space is also dark and cold; the average background temperature of space is 2-5 Kelvin. Ships with habitable life support sections, even with the engines off, will have a surface temperature of at least 200 to 250 Kelvin (Ice melts at 273 Kelvin). For a typical habitable section of a ship, the radiated heat signature is in the range of a few hundred kilowatts, which is generally detectable out to 30,000 km in under a day using a full spherical search pattern with a broad field IR band telescope with an aperture of 3 meters.

In addition to the waste heat generated by life support, a ship?s power generation system generates heat. A perfect Carnot heat engine produces 2 watts of waste heat for every watt of electricity it produces, where waste heat dissipation is free (like in an atmosphere). In space, waste heat has to be radiated. Minimizing radiator size (to make them retractable in combat, and to make them mass less) means running them at a higher temperature, which reduces the efficiency of the Carnot cycle. With a radiator roughly a 25m x 25m surface radiating from both sides at around 1600 K. Each radiator disposes of roughly 44 GJ of waste heat in 128 seconds, for a signature strength of roughly 340 megawatts, which is detectable (easily) out to around 10 light seconds (3 million kilometers) under the same conditions as the crew?s waste heat. (The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 500 light seconds, as a point of comparison.) Beyond that, for a ship using a reaction drive, even in cruise mode, it?s producing a minimum of a 340 gigawatt signature at about 2800 K, which gives a 1 day spherical search pattern ?guaranteed? detection radius of a bit over 1,000 light seconds, or roughly 2 AU.

Finally, any ship using a reaction drive reveals its mass by the correlation between observed rate of thrust and the temperature and brightness/mass spectroscopy of the exhaust plume.
If there is a turd in the punch bowl, adding more punch isn't going to help.

http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydrake/HARP

Offline Oldgrue

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2008, 10:31:48 AM »
Which is where game environment gets involved:

My environment isn't running at the same tech levels as SM:P.  Our vessels are small and close to the drive sections to capture that waste heat (Go Kedrake!)  and have an outer superstructure sort of like a ship in a bottle - leaving that bleed less pronounced as a side effect but still the same exhaust plume.

I'm just waiting for one of my players to compare their ships to savages huddled around a fire, with a thermal blanket.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2008, 01:33:28 PM »
Oldgrue,
 I am not running a game right now but I think it will happen in the future as the games we are playing are going to take a break and I will fill in for the summer strech. It is one of the good and bad things having joined the grop in the past year and half. I was quite content just being a player again after about a 6 year GM strech.
 Also I was just trying to get some people posting back in this section again.

MDC
volenteer moderator
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Anybody up for SM:P starship tactics discussion?
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2008, 02:40:16 PM »
 I was thinking for a system attack the following.

1) All ships arive in system through the use of the Q-Drive extra ships, drones [combat, sensor and Elect War] and maybe powered asteroids.
2) Sensor drones and starships analyse the system with there sensors.
3) Sensor drones and their tenders and AWACKS type craft move out from the main group so as to be out of the EW field.
4) Deploy jammers/white noise generators. ie EW
5) Deploy groups for attacking target, some real some just dummies.
6) react to defenders

Did I miss anything?
MDC   
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.