| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| jmanski wrote: | Okay, I'm more clear now.
Someone had an idea: sensors work in different settings:
1. Combat: the smallest, works at listed ranges
2. Planetary: bigger, works at double range
3. Interplanetary: even bigger, works at 4x ranges
4: System: biggest, works at 10x range
Those numbers are not exactly what he had (it's from memory), but it could be a starting point. Speed could work off the same principle. Say a ship is going from planet to moon- use Planetary: speed and sensors double. If you pick a fight along the way you drop back to Combat and everything works as normal. |
Hmm, I think that was me. I did the Short (1x) medium (2x) and long (3x) range bands.
| Madwand wrote: |
I don't get this. WHY would sensors behave differently in this way? What happens if I'm in combat and I decide I want to see a little farther? I think I'll just set the sensors to "System" mode permanently, thank you. |
Ah. The way I did it up, the sensors weren't set to a range, but the range increased the difficulty (like shooting a blaster), The idea being that the farther away the "boogie" the harder it would be to detect something, and the less information you would get on the "boogie".
So it was much easier to pick up something at short range then at long (+10 difficulty), and the amount of information you received would be greater too.
I could see adding a modifier for scale to this as well. It is probably a lot easier to pick up a Star Destroyer then a TIE fighter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Madwand
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
Ah. The way I did it up, the sensors weren't set to a range, but the range increased the difficulty (like shooting a blaster), The idea being that the farther away the "boogie" the harder it would be to detect something, and the less information you would get on the "boogie".
So it was much easier to pick up something at short range then at long (+10 difficulty), and the amount of information you received would be greater too.
I could see adding a modifier for scale to this as well. It is probably a lot easier to pick up a Star Destroyer then a TIE fighter. |
Well now, this makes more sense to me. I was considering something similar myself: use the normal sensor ranges as a "base" range, which may be multiplied at a cost of increased difficulty to the sensor skill. Obviously larger objects would also be easier to see: this is actually already part of the rules, with bonuses of +10 to +30 depending on the size of the object. A star gives you the +30, and such an object should be visible from thousands of light years away, so this would imply that a space unit would be several light-months of distance at least. A galaxy can be visible all the way across the universe, what kind of bonus to sensors should that have? These rules obviously still don't work, even if we allow sensor ranges to be multiplied. Getting the correct difficulties for range/bonuses for size and visibility will be a lot of work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madwand
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | Because getting more information over a larger distance takes TIME.
|
Ah... so this is an important new item of information for your proposed sensor rules. You can scan farther by scanning longer. Instead of associating increased scan multipliers with "Planetary", "Interplanetary", and "System" uses of the sensors, just associate ranges directly with the amount of time required, and have the uses the technology is put to defined by the limitations of the technology.
Still, I wonder... how would this actually work? Is this something like a sensor "ping", that can go out once every 10 rounds if one wants to reach 10x range, for example? How and why is it limited like this? Can any means be taken to overcome the limitation, like buying additional sensors, providing extra energy/capacitors etc.? The engineer in me wants to know.
| jmanski wrote: |
Thats all well and good, but that's realism, and I don't want my game realistic! Real life isn't fun. If real life was fun- I wouldn't play a role-playing game to escape it.
If it's not what you want, then don't do it. I agree the system in place has it's problems, but some of the stuff in Atomic Rockets would take the fun out of Star Wars. |
So, here's the problem. You are complaining about "too much realism" on a thread that's all about making Star Wars more realistic, by determining the exact size of a space unit. What you have in this thread is a bunch of very smart, technically-minded forum-goers who love to deconstruct the vague clues given in the WEG source material and turn it into usable data. Maybe this isn't the right thread to decide you aren't interested in realism?
Personally, I find a bit of added realism and hard sci-fi to my Star Wars games to be awesome fun. Star Wars is an inherently low-realism space opera setting, but it can be a lot of fun to extrapolate extra realism from the few vague clues we have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Madwand"] | atgxtg wrote: |
Well now, this makes more sense to me. I was considering something similar myself: use the normal sensor ranges as a "base" range, which may be multiplied at a cost of increased difficulty to the sensor skill. |
Pretty much. What I think would work best would be for the character to make a sensor roll, and then detect things based on the roll vs the difficulty. (Like +5 at medium range, and +10 at long range).
What I'd like to do is work up a list on how much detail to give out by comparing the skill roll with the difficulty. For instance, just making the roll will detect the object and speed. Better rolls will indicate if it is fighter sized, freighter sized, and so on. A really good roll can identify the ship class, maybe even model.
| Madwand wrote: |
Obviously larger objects would also be easier to see: this is actually already part of the rules, with bonuses of +10 to +30 depending on the size of the object. A star gives you the +30, and such an object should be visible from thousands of light years away, so this would imply that a space unit would be several light-months of distance at least. |
Uh, not really. What is represents is that a star is throwing off such massive amounts of energy over so long a period of time that it can be detected and seen at far greater ranges than the senors operate at. Most days, we can look up at the sky on Earth and see our star, about 150 million km away. That doesn't mean that our eyes have a detection range of 150 million km. Nor, by extrapolation should ship's sensors.
The same happens with small, short range radios and powerful transmitters. The transmission strength will allow the small radios to pick up a single well beyond their normal reception range.
| Madwand wrote: |
A galaxy can be visible all the way across the universe, what kind of bonus to sensors should that have? These rules obviously still don't work, even if we allow sensor ranges to be multiplied. Getting the correct difficulties for range/bonuses for size and visibility will be a lot of work. |
No, I think the rules work fine. Just because you can detect a Galaxy all the way across the universe doesn't mean you can tell where all the planets and spaceships are in that galaxy. Today, we can take pictures of stars and galaxies with cameras, yet those same camera are not going to give a good picture of a bird in flight or a high flying airplane without some good enhancements.
What is happening with the really huge objects, like stars is that they have a very high "signature" that makes them detectable at far greater ranges than would be the case with spaceships.
As far as a time factor goes, I'd suggest just treating the time increment as if you were combining an action, and adding the extra dice to the roll. So the longer you scan something the more information you would eventually receive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madwand
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | Uh, not really. What is represents is that a star is throwing off such massive amounts of energy over so long a period of time that it can be detected and seen at far greater ranges than the senors operate at. Most days, we can look up at the sky on Earth and see our star, about 150 million km away. That doesn't mean that our eyes have a detection range of 150 million km. Nor, by extrapolation should ship's sensors.
|
I disagree. The range of unaided human eyesight is two million light years: the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. We can both potentially detect and identify objects within this range. Further, the core book implicitly requires that stars may only be detected when they come within sensors range, by providing (only!) a +30 bonus to the sensors roll when they do so. By implication, stars are invisible outside sensors range. This is obviously ludicrous, and no sane GM is going to be this strict (I hope!), but this is RAW. I merely provide this as an example of how the existing rules are hopelessly broken.
| atgxtg wrote: | The same happens with small, short range radios and powerful transmitters. The transmission strength will allow the small radios to pick up a single well beyond their normal reception range.
|
Ah, so this is an important point: objects that are emitting any radiation above and beyond what the background of space is emitting are easier to see, in proportion to how much energy they emit. This includes spaceships, space rocks and asteroids heated by solar radiation, stars, galaxies, planets, etc. In reality, any such object is fairly easy to detect (thus, "no stealth in space!") at any relevant distance and a considerable amount of information be determined about the object simply from passive sensors (for example, take everything we can learn about a star just by looking at it with the proper equipment today). In a game, we might want to make stealth a possibility, just because it might make a more interesting game, so we have to make things considerably less realistic. Where do we draw this line? The current sensors rules seem to draw it at nearly complete blindness. Certainly, I agree with you that at least radiating objects should receive a significant bonus to detection. No matter what, any realistic sensor rules should be able to handle anything from the naked eye spotting a distant galaxy to sophisticated sensors scanning a nearby ship to determine details like crew compliment, modifications, etc. If the rules can handle the extreme cases elegantly, then I have much higher confidence they can handle everything in-between.
| atgxtg wrote: | No, I think the rules work fine. Just because you can detect a Galaxy all the way across the universe doesn't mean you can tell where all the planets and spaceships are in that galaxy. Today, we can take pictures of stars and galaxies with cameras, yet those same camera are not going to give a good picture of a bird in flight or a high flying airplane without some good enhancements.
What is happening with the really huge objects, like stars is that they have a very high "signature" that makes them detectable at far greater ranges than would be the case with spaceships.
|
I disagree that the current rules work "just fine". At extreme ranges, it IS possible to both detect (there's an object on sensors, 2 million lights years distance) and identify (that's a spiral galaxy of similar size to our own, named the Andromeda galaxy. Collision in 2.5 billion years) objects. This is not the same thing as being able to resolve all the details about the object, i.e. mapping a galaxy. I agree that WOULD require a closer range, and any realistic sensors rules should take this into account.
| atgxtg wrote: | | As far as a time factor goes, I'd suggest just treating the time increment as if you were combining an action, and adding the extra dice to the roll. So the longer you scan something the more information you would eventually receive. |
Interesting idea. Actually, this is already a part of the core rules to some extent: you can take twice as long in order to get a +1D bonus to most rolls, including sensors. I would suggest extending these rules, so either each extra round spent gives you +1D, OR taking 4x as long gives you +2D, 8x gives +3D, etc. With this bonus, the longer you take the farther you can see and the more details you can resolve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Madwand wrote: |
I disagree. The range of unaided human eyesight is two million light years: the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. We can both potentially detect and identify objects within this range. |
Really? Okay, I just got back from the market. Now since we are both on the same planet you must certainly be within 2 million light years. So what was I wearing to the market?
Come on now. Unless you are from the planet Kryton, you aren't going to be able to see anything and make out much detail at range. Not unless the item is very big and well lit up (like a star). Go read up on absolute and apparent stellar magnitude.
Or do you make player roll for sneak if they are in a nearby star system?
| Madwand wrote: |
Further, the core book implicitly requires that stars may only be detected when they come within sensors range, by providing (only!) a +30 bonus to the sensors roll when they do so. By implication, stars are invisible outside sensors range. This is obviously ludicrous, and no sane GM is going to be this strict (I hope!), but this is RAW. I merely provide this as an example of how the existing rules are hopelessly broken. |
Uh, where do it state that? You might be inferring that, but I don't believe that it is implied. And, as you have mentioned it is ludicrous. Even IF the star doesn't show up on sensors, nothing says that people couldn't see it by looking out the window-assuming they are in realspace.
| Madwand wrote: |
Ah, so this is an important point: objects that are emitting any radiation above and beyond what the background of space is emitting are easier to see, in proportion to how much energy they emit. This includes spaceships, space rocks and asteroids heated by solar radiation, stars, galaxies, planets, etc. In reality, any such object is fairly easy to detect (thus, "no stealth in space!") at any relevant distance and a considerable amount of information be determined about the object simply from passive sensors (for example, take everything we can learn about a star just by looking at it with the proper equipment today). In a game, we might want to make stealth a possibility, just because it might make a more interesting game, so we have to make things considerably less realistic. Where do we draw this line? The current sensors rules seem to draw it at nearly complete blindness. Certainly, I agree with you that at least radiating objects should receive a significant bonus to detection. No matter what, any realistic sensor rules should be able to handle anything from the naked eye spotting a distant galaxy to sophisticated sensors scanning a nearby ship to determine details like crew compliment, modifications, etc. If the rules can handle the extreme cases elegantly, then I have much higher confidence they can handle everything in-between. |
Yeah, the idea of excess energy, mass or gravity over the "background level" could/would/probably should be easier to detect. Just how much easier would depend on how much excess. A watch battery probably isn't going to put out much.
The problem with doing this in game is that we don't know just what the "default" power levels that ships put out. So it would be difficult to come up with adjustments for different classes of ship. I'd consider a bonus for high MOV (more powerful engines) and size (it takes more power to move a Star Destoer at 6 than a YT-1300).
Plus it can get a bit nit picky.
If you want a quick and dirty rule, try taking the log of the ship (or object's) greatest dimension and multiplier by 5 (rounding to the nearest increment of 5 optional).
That makes a TIE fighter +0, a TY-1300 +5, A Imperial Star Destroyer +15, and a typical Class G2V star +30.
If you want something more detailed, I'd suggest getting a copy of Stuff!. Stuff! is a set of weapon/vechile/equipment/creature/cilvization design rules for a game called EABA. EABA is very similar to the d6 system, so it is possible to use Stuff! for some things in Star Wars.
I use it for weapon design already. Just multiply Stuff pips by 2/3 and add 4 to get Star Wars pips.
2)
| atgxtg wrote: | No, I think the rules work fine. Just because you can detect a Galaxy all the way across the universe doesn't mean you can tell where all the planets and spaceships are in that galaxy. Today, we can take pictures of stars and galaxies with cameras, yet those same camera are not going to give a good picture of a bird in flight or a high flying airplane without some good enhancements.
What is happening with the really huge objects, like stars is that they have a very high "signature" that makes them detectable at far greater ranges than would be the case with spaceships.
|
I disagree that the current rules work "just fine". At extreme ranges, it IS possible to both detect (there's an object on sensors, 2 million lights years distance) and identify (that's a spiral galaxy of similar size to our own, named the Andromeda galaxy. Collision in 2.5 billion years) objects. This is not the same thing as being able to resolve all the details about the object, i.e. mapping a galaxy. I agree that WOULD require a closer range, and any realistic sensors rules should take this into account.
| atgxtg wrote: | | As far as a time factor goes, I'd suggest just treating the time increment as if you were combining an action, and adding the extra dice to the roll. So the longer you scan something the more information you would eventually receive. |
Interesting idea. Actually, this is already a part of the core rules to some extent: you can take twice as long in order to get a +1D bonus to most rolls, including sensors. I would suggest extending these rules, so either each extra round spent gives you +1D, OR taking 4x as long gives you +2D, 8x gives +3D, etc. With this bonus, the longer you take the farther you can see and the more details you can resolve.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the idea of range "bands" akin to blaster ranges.
As far as interstellar objects and such: I think oranges and apples are being compared here. Detecting stars, planets and what-not would be completely different from detecting ships (except maybe the Death Stars).
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | I like the idea of range "bands" akin to blaster ranges. |
I does seem the simplest method for increasing range.
Considering how blaster ranges scale, and that most forms of electromagnetic and gravitation force work of an inverse sqaure relationship, I suggest:
Medium Range (+5 difficulty, or one difficulty step): x2 Range
Long Range (+10 difficulty, or 2 difficulty steps): x4 range
That would get most ships' detection out to 160-200 SUs
We might even consider allowing for detection beyond that range at additional difficulty.
| jmanski wrote: |
As far as interstellar objects and such: I think oranges and apples are being compared here. Detecting stars, planets and what-not would be completely different from detecting ships (except maybe the Death Stars). |
I don't think so, what ever sensors are scanning for, be it energy or mass or gravitational effects, stellar objects would have it. Also, a ship would last too long in space if it couldn't detect such objects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't think so, what ever sensors are scanning for, be it energy or mass or gravitational effects, stellar objects would have it. Also, a ship would last too long in space if it couldn't detect such objects. |
You misunderstood me. They should be detectable, but there should different ranges or something. I meant planets and stars should be detectable from much further away than ships.
Perhaps I should have said watermelons compared to grapes, or something.... 
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: |
You misunderstood me. They should be detectable, but there should different ranges or something. I meant planets and stars should be detectable from much further away than ships. |
Ah.  Yes, I agree with that. That's one reason why I did up the log of length (m) thing. I used length for the simple reason that it is the only value we can get on ships to use. Either no values exist for power generated, and mass, or the ones that do exist are nonsense (neutronium hulls), but practically every design has an official length in meters.
Generally, I'd assuage that something massive or that is throwing off a ton of energy would be detectable as far longer ranges than the standard 25-60 SUs of most sensors.
I figure those ranges are for detecting other objects about the size of a small freighter or starfighter. Anything bigger, more powerful should probably be easier to detect and anything smaller, or less powerful would be tougher. The running silent rules seem to confirm this idea.
| jmanski wrote: |
Perhaps I should have said watermelons compared to grapes, or something.... |
LOL! How about grapes to boulders? or tropical islands? It's not just scale but that stellar objects are several orders of magnitude larger and more powerful (in terms of energy). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madwand
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | If you want a quick and dirty rule, try taking the log of the ship (or object's) greatest dimension and multiplier by 5 (rounding to the nearest increment of 5 optional).
That makes a TIE fighter +0, a TY-1300 +5, A Imperial Star Destroyer +15, and a typical Class G2V star +30.
|
Ok, I've been working on the math on this for the last few days. I think you are on the right track. I'll work through my assumptions and math. Those not interested in that can skip this part:
I begin with the assumption that we are trying to find an objects "visibility" on sensors. This visibility should be roughly proportional to the apparent size of the object from the position of the sensors. For example, the Sun and Moon have the same "visibility" from Earth (apparent size). For now, I ignore an objects power output.
Using basic trigonometry, it's fairly easy to calculate the apparent size of an object in radians or degrees. It is 2 * asin(.5*length/distance) (or diameter instead of length, for stellar bodies). We can ignore the constants for now, and to a first approximation Visibility = asin(length/distance) ~= length/distance. i.e., objects are easier to see if they are bigger, harder if they are farther away, and these relationships are roughly linear.
Here is where atgxtg's nice idea of taking the log scale comes into play. As it turns out, if we take the log (base 2, for convenience) of both the length AND the distance of an object, we can add the first and subtract the second to sensor difficulties, and we will have a consistent scale at ALL ranges and sizes of objects.
So how would this work? Well, let's use atgxtg's scale for a moment (the Sun = +30 to rolls). If we do this, then our Visibility ~= length/distance formula tells us that for every doubling of size of an object, it will be visibly TWICE as far away. That means that to use this scale correctly, we need to DOUBLE sensor ranges for every extra +1 to difficulty. Hmm. This seems too much.
So here's my proposed house rule. There are other ways to do this, but what I suggest is a formula of +(log_2(length in meters)-3)*5 bonus to sensor rolls of objects, and an additional difficulty of +5 for each DOUBLING of sensor ranges. i.e. in an X-wing with Search sensor range for 75, to search at range 150 = +5, 300 = +10, 600 = +15, 1200 = +20, etc. For object bonuses to the roll, use this table:
| Code: | Size Bonus Examples
1m -15
2m -10 person
4m -5 small speeder
8m +0 small starfighter
16m +5 large starfighter
32m +10 small transport
64m +15 space barge
128m +20 bulk freighter
256m +25 Corellian Corvette
512m +30 Nebulon B Frigate
1km +35 Victory Star Destroyer
2km +40 Star Destroyer
4km +45 Uro-ik V’alh Battleship
8km +50 Mon Calamari Super Star Cruiser
16km +55 Sovereign Star Destroyer
33km +60 Super Star Destroyer, Phobos
66km +65 Bianca
131km +70
262km +75 Death Star I
524km +80 Miranda
1Mm +85 Ceres, Death Star II
2Mm +90 Sedna
4Mm +95 the Moon
8Mm +100 Mars
17Mm +105 the Earth
34Mm +110
67Mm +115 Uranus, Neptune
134Mm +120 Jupiter, Saturn
268Mm +125 Wolf 359
537Mm +130 Proxima Centauri
1,074Mm +135 Alpha Centauri B
2,147Mm +140 the Sun
|
This table and house rule WORKS, mathematically, at ALL ranges and sizes of object. If an object is particularly energetic (i.e. a star), another bonus of +5 to +10 would be justified. The table is calibrated to the size of a starfighter, it would be reasonable to change this to whatever size of object you feel is the "default". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Madwand,
First off if you want to go with visibility, then I suggest using stellar magnitude for stars, since absolute magnitude is an actual measurement of how bright a star actually is.
The problem with just using size is that small, bright stars, like White Dwarfs are much more brighter and visible than larger brown and red stars.
For example the Sun is over 10 thousand times brighter than Proxima Centuari.
A "quick fix" would be to use: Bonus=210-(5 x Absolute Magnitude)
as the formula for stars. One perk is that it would make it easier to work up bonus score for various types of stars using real data.
Wolf 359: Absolute Magnitude: 16.64, Bonus +125 (actually +127)
Proxima Centauri: Absolute Magnitude 15.49, Bonus +135 (actually +133)
Alpha Centauri B: Absolute Magnitude 5.71, Bonus +180 (actually +181)
Sol (the Sun): Absolute Magnitude 4.83 +185 (actually +186)
Note that using magnitudes, we could get "real" values for most of the planets as well, just by converting visual magnitudes into absolute ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madwand
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | First off if you want to go with visibility, then I suggest using stellar magnitude for stars, since absolute magnitude is an actual measurement of how bright a star actually is. |
Quite reasonable. I'll note that "Visibility" as defined in my previous post refers only to size. For stars, it's perfectly reasonable to give a bonus based on absolute magnitude. This assumes you are using sensors that detect the appropriate radiation and not, for example, "mass sensors" or some similar sci-fi gadget. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobenhotep
Commander
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 333
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i never had these issues. i always used sensors as a plot device, because its too easy to"outdrive your headlights" if you take sensors literally. i only used ranges to figure out who sees who first. players really never seemed to care about any other aspect of sensors.
_________________
D&D 5e DM and WEG Star Wars GM for two kids who will hopefully carry on with RPGs for years to come
The Chijawa said so, that's why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madwand
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bobenhotep wrote: | | i never had these issues. i always used sensors as a plot device, because its too easy to"outdrive your headlights" if you take sensors literally. i only used ranges to figure out who sees who first. players really never seemed to care about any other aspect of sensors. |
This is also reasonable. The problem is that "who sees who first" doesn't always make sense when your units are at much different scales. For example, take an X-wing vs. a Star Destroyer. The X-wing has a length of 12.5 meters (+5 to sensors) and a sensors range of 75. The Star Destroyer has a length of 1,600m (+40 to sensors) and a sensors range of 200. The RAW sensors rules tell you that the Star Destroyer sees the X-wing from much farther than the X-wing can see it, which might be counterintuitive if you think bigger things are easier to see! My modified rules reverse the RAW rules, allowing the X-wing to have a +0 modifier to see the Star Destroyer at 19,200 space units, and the Star Destroyer to have a +0 modifier to spot the X-Wing at 400 space units (this does not take into account the difference in sensor bonus between the ships, which would allow the Star Destroyer to spot same-sized units 2x-4x times farther out than the X-wing, potentially). Basically, capital ships can't hide at relevant ranges. Now whether or not you like the consequences of these rules is a more personal decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
