| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:50 pm Post subject: Passive Sensors |
 |
|
I have a possible issue with the 2R&E Sensors rule. Active Sensors are divided into Scan, Search and Focus, while Passive only has a single setting. However, my understanding of modern sensor technology is that even passive sensors can be directionally focused in similar fashion. Any of you techies out there have thoughts on this?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guardian_A
Commodore
Joined: 24 May 2011
Posts: 1654
Location: South Dakota, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, Star Wars does take place a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Maybe scanner technology evolved a little differently there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: Passive Sensors |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I have a possible issue with the 2R&E Sensors rule. Active Sensors are divided into Scan, Search and Focus, while Passive only has a single setting. However, my understanding of modern sensor technology is that even passive sensors can be directionally focused in similar fashion. Any of you techies out there have thoughts on this? |
There is an argument that passive sensors would have a longer range than active sensors. If you haven't checked it out already, there are a number discussoins about realistic (as opposed to space opera style) detection in space. Here is one link: http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/06/space-warfare-ii-stealth-reconsidered.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: Passive Sensors |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | There is an argument that passive sensors would have a longer range than active sensors. |
I agree. The gist of the argument (IIRC) is that the energy given off by active sensors can be detected by passive sensors far beyond the active sensor's effective range. The example I read is that if you are hiding in a forest at night, and someone is looking for you with a flashlight, you will see the flashlight coming long before the person with the flashlight can get close enough to see you with it. AFAIK, this is one of the reasons that the military (for the most part) uses active sensors as little as possible (with a few notable exceptions.[/list]
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I only use passive sensor ranges for detecting something that is not emitting a lot of energy. Otherwise, using comparable sensor suites, passive sensors can detect active sensor systems at twice the range of search.
Passive sensors can be focused on a small area (a zoom lens is an example of this), but I just assume that kind of thing isn't standard equipment. (For simplicity's sake.)
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the past i have allowed (house rule) passive to be doubled up on range, but narrowed to a 60 deg arc, vice the normal 360 it is.. BUT that requires a space transports (or fighter) repair roll to 'reconfigure' them (diff 17, 2 min to do)..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | In the past i have allowed (house rule) passive to be doubled up on range, but narrowed to a 60 deg arc, vice the normal 360 it is.. BUT that requires a space transports (or fighter) repair roll to 'reconfigure' them (diff 17, 2 min to do).. |
Why wouldn't that be a sensor roll instead of repair?
I wouldn't think that in 2 minutes you could redesign and modify your existing sensors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | In the past i have allowed (house rule) passive to be doubled up on range, but narrowed to a 60 deg arc, vice the normal 360 it is.. BUT that requires a space transports (or fighter) repair roll to 'reconfigure' them (diff 17, 2 min to do).. |
Why wouldn't that be a sensor roll instead of repair?
I wouldn't think that in 2 minutes you could redesign and modify your existing sensors. |
I agree. I would think Repair would be used if you were making actual physical modifications to the ship's sensor package, but Sensors if you were just changing the setting from the control panel.
Also, why 60 degrees? IMO, it would be an easier fit to the RAW if it was 90, and keyed to the individual fire arcs.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | Also, why 60 degrees? IMO, it would be an easier fit to the RAW if it was 90, and keyed to the individual fire arcs.
|
Because he's using a hex map, silly.... 
Seriously though, I like the idea of passive sensors detecting active sensors. Makes passive sensors useful.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | Also, why 60 degrees? IMO, it would be an easier fit to the RAW if it was 90, and keyed to the individual fire arcs.
|
Because he's using a hex map, silly.... |
Fair enough. That, of course, makes me wonder how hex maps fit with the RAW...
| Quote: | | Seriously though, I like the idea of passive sensors detecting active sensors. Makes passive sensors useful. |
Not just active sensors, IMO. They should also be able to detect comm transmissions and active shields (all active energy transmission in one form or another). For ranges, I'm thinking:
-Sensors: The active sensor' range, plus the range of the passive sensors
-Shields: Shields #D times 10 in space units, plus the range of the passive sensors
-Comms: Not sure yet. Suggestions?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Fair enough. That, of course, makes me wonder how hex maps fit with the RAW... |
Well they are off by about 30 degrees.
| crmcneill wrote: | -Sensors: The active sensor' range, plus the range of the passive sensors
-Shields: Shields #D times 10 in space units, plus the range of the passive sensors
-Comms: Not sure yet. Suggestions? |
I would say
- Sensors: 2x Active range of the sensors. Since the active sensor has to bounce a signal off the target it has to be powerful enough to reach the target and bounce back, so once to the target and once back = 2x distance to target.
- Shields: sounds fine as a starting point, though I'd want to add a scaling factor since a 1D shield on a start destroyer would output a lot more power than a 1D shield on an X-wing.
- Comms: Minimal power should allow the comms to operate normally I should think, so very, very far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | I would say
- Sensors: 2x Active range of the sensors. Since the active sensor has to bounce a signal off the target it has to be powerful enough to reach the target and bounce back, so once to the target and once back = 2x distance to target. |
I think it needs to be a combination of the two, because the detection would be a factor both of the signal strength of the active sensors and the sensitivity of the passive sensors detecting the emissions.
| Quote: | | - Shields: sounds fine as a starting point, though I'd want to add a scaling factor since a 1D shield on a start destroyer would output a lot more power than a 1D shield on an X-wing. |
Good point.
| Quote: | | - Comms: Minimal power should allow the comms to operate normally I should think, so very, very far. |
I know modern ESM techniques can pick up on comm transmissions in similar fashion to how it picks up on active sensors. Perhaps if the characters specified that they were using short range comms on low power, it would allow them to evade detection. There is also technology available that would help; tight-beam transmissions, burst transmissions, frequency agility, etc.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | I would say
- Sensors: 2x Active range of the sensors. Since the active sensor has to bounce a signal off the target it has to be powerful enough to reach the target and bounce back, so once to the target and once back = 2x distance to target. |
I think it needs to be a combination of the two, because the detection would be a factor both of the signal strength of the active sensors and the sensitivity of the passive sensors detecting the emissions. |
That's fine. But the minimum should be 2x Active range of the source of the sensor emissions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
I know modern ESM techniques can pick up on comm transmissions in similar fashion to how it picks up on active sensors. Perhaps if the characters specified that they were using short range comms on low power, it would allow them to evade detection. There is also technology available that would help; tight-beam transmissions, burst transmissions, frequency agility, etc. |
So did we just come up with a reason to force our pilot characters to make good comm rolls too? Excellent. 
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | That's fine. But the minimum should be 2x Active range of the source of the sensor emissions. |
How about 2X, plus the range of the passive sensors?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
