Cloaking progression question

Home of SOLAR STARFIRE, 6th edition, rules based on the upcoming history of the Terran Solar Union.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Whitecold on Thu 15 Feb 2018 10:18

Dawn Falcon wrote:Of course, there should always be ways to FIND cloaked units... (maybe next era? If you don't understand that, don't worry :P)


I would underline the FIND part a few times. I can only think of a probabilistic solution, but if there are other ideas, I would be glad to hear them. I wouldn't want it to be a tech item, as that is a long term strategic decision, not a tactical one. One should have tactical options to deal with cloaked units, not "Wait ten turns until a research is rushed through and the item is refitted onto ships"
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Morpheus on Thu 15 Feb 2018 11:07

Elminster wrote:The first thing I thought about the size of the CLK is: how about making it work like Life Support? Let it cover a specific number of HS and if you want to cloak a bigger unit, you have to use more of them. Obviously the other stats have to be based on this concept.

That sounds very similar to what I had in mind although requiring multiple CLK systems for a larger ship is a good idea as well.

Elminster wrote:Making it based on Engine HS may be feasible, but what about the Shields? Don't they have to be cloaked, too?

Not saying that we have to make the technology similar but I seem to remember that in earlier Star Trek episodes/movies that a ship could not have its shields up while cloaked.
User avatar
Morpheus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 15:51

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Cralis on Thu 15 Feb 2018 15:16

Engine %, Hull %, or some combination are all possibilities. I haven't seen anyone suggest a size limit yet, like (AC), so cloaks are limited to smaller ships. That's another approach. But all of this is not part of the original question of whether the current progression methodology is good or bad.

I've already earmarked cloak as needing shields down... although I do find the idea of separate strategic movement and tactical battle cloaks or cloaking modes as something to investigate. And since we are in the weeds, I've already decided that CLK and AC cannot operate at the same time.

Don't forget that cloaking units are limited to Combat category sensor range.

As for organic detection methods, the rules already contain some. Firing weapons causes flash detection and, if the unit is within an enemy's normal T detection range, is automatically detected. They are P until then.

And we are going to make it so changing engine modes and landing or launching small units does the same.

At least on the earliest generations anyway. Down the road these things will improve. But there will be other technologies both for detection and deception...
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10738
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Morpheus on Fri 16 Feb 2018 11:29

Cralis wrote:Engine %, Hull %, or some combination are all possibilities. I haven't seen anyone suggest a size limit yet, like (AC), so cloaks are limited to smaller ships. That's another approach. But all of this is not part of the original question of whether the current progression methodology is good or bad.

Personally I'm not a fan of the size limit for CLK.

Cralis wrote:I've already earmarked cloak as needing shields down... although I do find the idea of separate strategic movement and tactical battle cloaks or cloaking modes as something to investigate. And since we are in the weeds, I've already decided that CLK and AC cannot operate at the same time.

I like all of these ideas with the exception of the separate "types" of cloaks. Personally I feel this would add an additional level of complexity to the rules that would dissuade players from using (or experimenting with) CLK.
User avatar
Morpheus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 15:51

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Whitecold on Fri 16 Feb 2018 12:46

Morpheus wrote:
Cralis wrote:Engine %, Hull %, or some combination are all possibilities. I haven't seen anyone suggest a size limit yet, like (AC), so cloaks are limited to smaller ships. That's another approach. But all of this is not part of the original question of whether the current progression methodology is good or bad.

Personally I'm not a fan of the size limit for CLK.

Cralis wrote:I've already earmarked cloak as needing shields down... although I do find the idea of separate strategic movement and tactical battle cloaks or cloaking modes as something to investigate. And since we are in the weeds, I've already decided that CLK and AC cannot operate at the same time.

I like all of these ideas with the exception of the separate "types" of cloaks. Personally I feel this would add an additional level of complexity to the rules that would dissuade players from using (or experimenting with) CLK.


Tactical cloak is more of an advancement of a strategic cloak. If a cloak provides short range concealment, it should also work at long ranges. The main issue I see is that LOD is currently too good a strategic cloak already. Nerfing LOD and then introducing CLK tech at lower EL that can provide strategic concealment would be interesting, with some way to break the cloaking still.
One way LOD is way too strong IMHO is still with the -2 sensor reduction you still have a long range bracket. Yce has 1 sH detection range, while it is much less than an non-LOD Yce, it is much longer than the unit can be detected at in return. So you ALWAYS know when you have been detected in return, which is a very valuable thing, way too valuable to give to LOD.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Cralis on Fri 16 Feb 2018 15:01

Morpheus wrote:I like all of these ideas with the exception of the separate "types" of cloaks. Personally I feel this would add an additional level of complexity to the rules that would dissuade players from using (or experimenting with) CLK.


You might be right... but it is an interesting idea. It's like the difference between I and Ic drives. One gives you a higher strategic speed, the other gives you a higher tactical speed but a low strategic speed with a risk of burnout. I could see something similar with CLK. Maybe not immediately either.

I'm just saying it's an intriguing idea.

whitecold wrote:Tactical cloak is more of an advancement of a strategic cloak. If a cloak provides short range concealment, it should also work at long ranges.


True... but what if tactical CLK could only be active for a certain number of tactical turns before it risks burnout? Then it would only be useful at the tactical level.

The main issue I see is that LOD is currently too good a strategic cloak already. Nerfing LOD and then introducing CLK tech at lower EL that can provide strategic concealment would be interesting, with some way to break the cloaking still.


I don't know about making CLK any earlier, but we are going to look at LOD when we address CLK.

One way LOD is way too strong IMHO is still with the -2 sensor reduction you still have a long range bracket. Yce has 1 sH detection range, while it is much less than an non-LOD Yce, it is much longer than the unit can be detected at in return. So you ALWAYS know when you have been detected in return, which is a very valuable thing, way too valuable to give to LOD.


The -2 also applies to the unit using LOD.

But how is that any different than normal? The same principle applies, at least as long as you and your opponent have the same level of Yc. When you can see him, he can see you.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10738
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Dawn Falcon on Wed 21 Feb 2018 12:33

Cralis wrote:Engine %, Hull %, or some combination are all possibilities.


Also it might be X HS plus Y%, potentially.
It can also have a fixed and a variable cost factor.

I've already earmarked cloak as needing shields down... although I do find the idea of separate strategic movement and tactical battle cloaks or cloaking modes as something to investigate


True... but what if tactical CLK could only be active for a certain number of tactical turns before it risks burnout? Then it would only be useful at the tactical level.[/quote]

:)

I wasn't thinking of it in such a "pure" way, but possibly. I was thinking more, if a sneak-cloak did -3 to detect and -2 to it's own sensors, a battle-cloak would do -1 to detect and -3 to it's own sensors.

But I understand I have some specific things in mind there which might not be where you want to go.
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Cralis on Wed 21 Feb 2018 14:18

Dawn Falcon wrote:
Cralis wrote:Engine %, Hull %, or some combination are all possibilities.


Also it might be X HS plus Y%, potentially.
It can also have a fixed and a variable cost factor.


That is another possibility, but I don't think we need to overly complicate HS calculation. I'm more inclined to use this for the cost so it has a floor value.

I wasn't thinking of it in such a "pure" way, but possibly. I was thinking more, if a sneak-cloak did -3 to detect and -2 to it's own sensors, a battle-cloak would do -1 to detect and -3 to it's own sensors.


I guess I don't understand how a cloak that hurts your sensors more than the enemy's has any value... let alone be combat oriented.

But I understand I have some specific things in mind there which might not be where you want to go.


So... like what? I'm always interested in hearing alternate concepts.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10738
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby Whitecold on Tue 06 Mar 2018 06:42

Again about LOD: To my understanding you take a -2 sensor hit on the LOD ship, while the opponent takes no hit in generations, but the detection category shifts.
What my point was that there is no realistic circumstances in which a LODed ship is detected and does not know it is being detected.
Frankly, I'd remove any long range sensor limitations on cloaked and LOD ships, as I very much assume all long range sensors are passive systems, and replace it with some system of detection probabilities, to give cloaked ships the disadvantage that they don't know if the enemy knows they are there.

As for tactical cloaks, I am not sure what they would add in terms of gameplay. They certainly would need a different kind of pseudo-physical explanation, why you can have only either-or.
What I see cloaks is as a tool for generating surprises for the opponent. As just a defensive tech, I am not convinced. We already have two stealth tech lines: No body talked about Stealth tuners so far. I'd really like to see LOD as free stealth, but correspondingly unreliable, stealth tuners as upgrade that is affordable and small enough to slap on your whole fleet, if you really want to for more tactical flexibility, and cloak as system for ships who are designed to operate under stealth the entire time.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: Cloaking progression question

Postby southwestforests on Wed 07 Mar 2018 03:34

Way off on a tangent even though I know it is - how does one cloak the external dumping of internal heat from all those crew bodies and the climate control and the electronics and such?
Screw the rivets, I build models for atmosphere, not detail
User avatar
southwestforests
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon 27 Aug 2012 21:01
Location: Boonville, Missouri - a little antebellum burg on the Missouri River

PreviousNext

Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron