Topic: Delta AV is what you are really talking about.

[Cleaven]

Since the other thread was locked:

Angular Velocity would not be relevant AFTER the point of firing, but at the point of firing, it is relevant, because it will determine how difficult it is to make that prediction.

If you can correctly predict where a ship is going to be, you will always hit the target, simple logic tells us that!!

Neither SFC2 or SFC3 gets it right, though SFC3's angular velocity is much closer than EW.

I don't see how AV can be important because it is too easily calculated. The modern day radar can determine approach vectors and angles for a target, but it's the changes at the moment of launch which will most affect the changes of hitting.

I'm not going to refer to anything from SFC2. There is no point in trying to compare the two because they are so different. I'm not going to say that the good bits from SFC2 should be put into SFC:TNG, just that the bad bits of SFC:TNG should be taken out.

Erratic Maneovres would be used to make it difficult to predict the speed & direction a ship is heading in by constantly changing direction & speed, even if it's only minor changes. 1 degree in space would make you miss by miles. Though SFC3 only changes the direction, and even then it's not a real direction change, just a visual effect.

I'm pretty sure that because of what you say the factor should certainly be delta AV as well.

All that would really matter is the evasive maneouvre you took after the Torpedo was fired, and the range that it was fired from (gives you longer to move). That's why a smaller, faster more maneouvrable ship could avoid the torpedo far more easily than a larger ship. Example, a Defiant is the most maneouvrable ship in the Federation fleet (that's canon by the way). It can change direction quickly, and is a small ship, so the distance is must travel in it's "evasive" direction is much smaller than what say a Galaxy Class would have to do.

I doubt very much that something like a Galaxy Class or Sovereign could avoid a Torpedo easily, they're just too big.

Frankly the canon argument is a dead loss for a game like this, it just leads in circles and is pretty pointless when it comes to play balance. Best not to bring it up because somebody else with put up a piece of contradictory canon to argue it.

Anyway the point you make about the changes after firing is exactly the point I'm making too. Delta AV is what matters not simple AV.

Like I said before, Bridge Commander gets it spot on, it simplifies it for the player, by using vertical and horizontal crosshairs to line up your target. But if you fire when you have a perfect lock, the only way a ship can avoid the Torpedo is if it CHANGES direction & Speed. You can still fire torpedoes "blind" - i.e. by not locking on to your target, but unless they have uber tracking capabilities, they miss everytime, unless a ship is stupid enough to fly into one of them!!

What you're describing here is delta AV not pure AV. Change SFC to use delta AV and things will be a lot better for me. No more Snoopy Vs the Red Baron dog fights with starships.

[KBF-WillWeasel]

I think you may need to define what Delta AV is, I think those you are debating with may not understand that term.....

[The Pelican]

Never heard of Delta AV - if that's it's name, then that's it's name.

There are a few things in SFC2 I'd like to see in SFC3, as long as missiles stay a 100 miles away from the game!!  Self-propelled weapons? Imagine the fuel they must need to travel 10,000km, never mind a few 100,000!!

[hobbesmaster]

I don't see how AV can be important because it is too easily calculated. The modern day radar can determine approach vectors and angles for a target, but it's the changes at the moment of launch which will most affect the changes of hitting.

I'm not going to refer to anything from SFC2. There is no point in trying to compare the two because they are so different. I'm not going to say that the good bits from SFC2 should be put into SFC:TNG, just that the bad bits of SFC:TNG should be taken out.

I'm not familiar with the previous thread, but if we believe that SFC2 is fully using SFB scales and just scaling stuff up via sensors for situation awareness, teh following analogy would be apt:
Try to hit a seawolf on silent running at depth from the surface of the moon with a 64 megaton nuclear warhead on a delivery mechanism that travels at the speed of light.  That would be similar to a Federation proximity photon or Disruptor spray from max range (moon to earth is range 39).  Its amazing that the ships in SFB hit anything at all as you can hit a 100 meter target at 400,000,000 meters 33% of the time with heavy weapons.

[Cleaven]

A delta is a Greek letter used in mathematics to represent rate of change. Lower case delta is drawn as a small triangle. Delta AV means the rate of change of the AV. AV is very simple to determine at any point in time (such as the moment of launch) but when the rate of change is high the predictions get worse.

[The Pelican]

I think I remember it now, I understand what you're talking about now anyway. Been about 4 years since I was studying for my Maths degree, not that it mattered, I failed the damn thing(I'm terrible at doing Proofs, and 90% of the first 2 years was doing proofs). Though "Delta" is used way too many times in maths.

Where's Euler when you need him eh?

[Byzantine]

In simpler words:
AV is the old 'lead your target' issue from fighter, tank, and naval big gun sims.  It has no meaning for a computerized fire control system where 'target lock' is everything.   The SFB designers understood this nifty bit of technology and wrapped it all up in EW.

The delta AV that Cleaven referred to is any maneuver that changes the parameters of speed/course that were in existence at the moment of firing.  That would be erratic maneuvers.

High AV does increase the difficulty for the automated tracking/targeting systems but not to the degree that EM should. AV as implemented in SFC3 is questionable.  The games current values place much more emphasis on AV than on EM.

[Cleaven]

Yep.

[The Pelican]

In simpler words:
AV is the old 'lead your target' issue from fighter, tank, and naval big gun sims.  It has no meaning for a computerized fire control system where 'target lock' is everything.   The SFB designers understood this nifty bit of technology and wrapped it all up in EW.

The delta AV that Cleaven referred to is any maneuver that changes the parameters of speed/course that were in existence at the moment of firing.  That would be erratic maneuvers.

High AV does increase the difficulty for the automated tracking/targeting systems but not to the degree that EM should. AV as implemented in SFC3 is questionable.  The games current values place much more emphasis on AV than on EM.

Again, not really true. As I have said many times, AV is really a minor factor in SFC3, Range & both Evasive & Erratic Maneouvres matter far more. You fly with Erratic Maneouvres on in SFC3, then the opponents accuracy rate drops by a good 40%, even higher with Faster Ships. AV doesn't exactly change much anyway, until you reach point blank range, the AV is usually below 30, not enough to have any major effect on the weapons.

The difference in SizeClass, the most overlooked value in SFC3, is one of the largest factors on the game when it comes to accuracy. If you give a ship a Size Class of 100, you CANNOT miss it, AV, Evasive Maneouvres, even Erratic Maneouvres won't make a darn bit of difference. In fact, it's probably THE most important factor. You have a ship which is considered "smaller" than your opponent, by Size Class, then you are going to evade more heavy weapons.

A skilled pilot can make ANYONE miss, even at Range 10-20 with an AV of zero.

Weapon Accuracy at Range is what is the major issue, it's a "luck" factor, and it's too high. At long range heavy weapons have accuracy ratings of 20-30%. That's just too low to be even remotely realistic. Because of this, it's impossible tell how much AV is really affecting the weapon. I'd hope that if the AV's of two ships at the point of fire stayed exactly the same throughout the torpedoes movement, then the Torpedo would hit no matter how high the AV was.

----------

I still don't like EW, I just can't see how it makes sense at all. We've seen many times that if you can pick up even the tiniest trace of a ship location, you can hit it. I also doubt that any Computer that advanced could be jammed so easily. AV may not make sense, but EW just makes even less sense.

[FPF-DieHard]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

[hobbesmaster]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Applying additional power to secondary and tertiary sensor arrays on different parts of the vessel so you can triangulate the vessel's current position better and apply power to computers that predict the liklihood of the ship's next probable move.

I can try different technobabble if you like...

[Cleaven]

I don't think anybody is really applying extra power to computers, they will always be turned on. It is the sensor arrays, and active scanning which is being powered up and down.

[Byzantine]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

[Cleaven]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

I don't want to say this is definitely the case, but if the ECCM is a genereric "power to the targetting array" like active sonar, then the more pings then the more information you have about the targets positioning. Just a guess on the part of the designers.

Note that in SFB, EM is an optional rule.

[hobbesmaster]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

I don't want to say this is definitely the case, but if the ECCM is a genereric "power to the targetting array" like active sonar, then the more pings then the more information you have about the targets positioning. Just a guess on the part of the designers.

Note that in SFB, EM is an optional rule.

Technically, all of EW is an optional rule.

[FPF-DieHard]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

I don't want to say this is definitely the case, but if the ECCM is a genereric "power to the targetting array" like active sonar, then the more pings then the more information you have about the targets positioning. Just a guess on the part of the designers.

Note that in SFB, EM is an optional rule.

Technically, all of EW is an optional rule.

I can accept Cleaven's line of Tehcnobabble as making sense as much as any other aspect of SFB physics.   Thanks.

[Byzantine]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

I don't want to say this is definitely the case, but if the ECCM is a generic "power to the targetting array" like active sonar, then the more pings then the more information you have about the targets positioning. Just a guess on the part of the designers.

Note that in SFB, EM is an optional rule.

Have you ever been just started to take an action and then your eyes saw this would be bad but the signal to stop does not reach your hand in time?  Perfect lock, eyes on target, and just as you squeeze the trigger the target turns.  Dang!  Missed.  That is EM to me and no amount of pinging, even continuous, will change that outcome.

But I am not throwing stones here.  The intent of the designers was a fun game and I think they succeeded admirably.  I can not say it is a bad simulation in any way shape or form, because it is 'simulating' something that does not exist.  If it were a true naval sim I might carp on the point more but it is not.  ECM, EM, and rockets or whatever, it is a d@mn fun game!  All versions!

[hobbesmaster]

Have you ever been just started to take an action and then your eyes saw this would be bad but the signal to stop does not reach your hand in time?  Perfect lock, eyes on target, and just as you squeeze the trigger the target turns.  Dang!  Missed.  That is EM to me and no amount of pinging, even continuous, will change that outcome.

At least with SFB it can't possibly be like that.  If your computer is targetting a 600 meter vessel at a range of say, 150,000km travelling at 15c its not going to matter what little jinks the target is making, you've already got one hell of a computer system just to get any sort of resolution on that target.  EM in SFB is basically playing with the warp fields to confuse sensors.  At least thats the impression I've gotten.

[Death_Merchant]

"Erratic maneuvers" never made any sense to me from a physics standpoint.
Little jinks for some thing moving at great velocities? That's a HUGE impulse to impart.
and that's one heckofa acceleration! 0 to c in 0.1 sec?!?! Whoa nelly!
Think of it as a rifle bullet "jinking" in flight. Tumbling, sure. Jinking at 0.25c?!?

The electronic jamming "ghost sensor images, etc" of ECM in SFB and the corresponding increase in sensor power (ECCM) to "burn through" the jamming makes more sense (to me). Sure would be MUCH cheaper and effective power-wise.

Reality Check Disclaimer: This is only a game. For example, if incorporating AV makes the game fun to play-> so be it!

[The Pelican]

Have you ever been just started to take an action and then your eyes saw this would be bad but the signal to stop does not reach your hand in time?  Perfect lock, eyes on target, and just as you squeeze the trigger the target turns.  Dang!  Missed.  That is EM to me and no amount of pinging, even continuous, will change that outcome.

At least with SFB it can't possibly be like that.  If your computer is targetting a 600 meter vessel at a range of say, 150,000km travelling at 15c its not going to matter what little jinks the target is making, you've already got one hell of a computer system just to get any sort of resolution on that target.  EM in SFB is basically playing with the warp fields to confuse sensors.  At least thats the impression I've gotten.

If you think about it, "little jinks" would make an absolutely HUGE difference. Remember, the computer has to pick the exact course the target is going to be travelling on, and then fire the Torpedo so that when the Torpedo travels the required distance, it hits the target. At that distance, even 0.01 degrees will make you miss by miles. And that's without the ship attempting an Evasive Maneouvre, which would make another huge difference.

[Age]

"Erratic maneuvers" never made any sense to me from a physics standpoint.
Little jinks for some thing moving at great velocities? That's a HUGE impulse to impart.
and that's one heckofa acceleration! 0 to c in 0.1 sec?!?! Whoa nelly!
Think of it as a rifle bullet "jinking" in flight. Tumbling, sure. Jinking at 0.25c?!?

The electronic jamming "ghost sensor images, etc" of ECM in SFB and the corresponding increase in sensor power (ECCM) to "burn through" the jamming makes more sense (to me). Sure would be MUCH cheaper and effective power-wise.

Reality Check Disclaimer: This is only a game. For example, if incorporating AV makes the game fun to play-> so be it!

I have never heard of Submarines jaming other Torpedoes countermeasures yes/AirPlanes can use countermeasures to btw.I have never heard of Submarines chargeing thier Torpedoes.This is what puzzles me chargeing a photon torpedo?

[FVA_C_ Blade_ XC]

"Erratic maneuvers" never made any sense to me from a physics standpoint.
Little jinks for some thing moving at great velocities? That's a HUGE impulse to impart.
and that's one heckofa acceleration! 0 to c in 0.1 sec?!?! Whoa nelly!
Think of it as a rifle bullet "jinking" in flight. Tumbling, sure. Jinking at 0.25c?!?

The electronic jamming "ghost sensor images, etc" of ECM in SFB and the corresponding increase in sensor power (ECCM) to "burn through" the jamming makes more sense (to me). Sure would be MUCH cheaper and effective power-wise.

Reality Check Disclaimer: This is only a game. For example, if incorporating AV makes the game fun to play-> so be it!

I have never heard of Submarines jaming other Torpedoes countermeasures yes/AirPlanes can use countermeasures to btw.I have never heard of Submarines chargeing thier Torpedoes.This is what puzzles me chargeing a photon torpedo?

A Photon torp is just a case until the energy from the warp core is applied to it.

It would seem rather rash to hold all thoes torps if they were ready for use,one good hit and splat your ship would be no more.

[Age]

"Erratic maneuvers" never made any sense to me from a physics standpoint.
Little jinks for some thing moving at great velocities? That's a HUGE impulse to impart.
and that's one heckofa acceleration! 0 to c in 0.1 sec?!?! Whoa nelly!
Think of it as a rifle bullet "jinking" in flight. Tumbling, sure. Jinking at 0.25c?!?

The electronic jamming "ghost sensor images, etc" of ECM in SFB and the corresponding increase in sensor power (ECCM) to "burn through" the jamming makes more sense (to me). Sure would be MUCH cheaper and effective power-wise.

Reality Check Disclaimer: This is only a game. For example, if incorporating AV makes the game fun to play-> so be it!

I have never heard of Submarines jaming other Torpedoes countermeasures yes/AirPlanes can use countermeasures to btw.I have never heard of Submarines chargeing thier Torpedoes.This is what puzzles me chargeing a photon torpedo?

A Photon torp is just a case until the energy from the warp core is applied to it.

It would seem rather rash to hold all thoes torps if they were ready for use,one good hit and splat your ship would be no more.

Then what about real Submarines then?They don't have to take the energy from the reactor to supply energy to the Torpedo.What about conventional Submarines torpedos.When fired upon from another tarpedo the Subs would be splat anyways.I would say that when the magazine that holds all the torpedos get it on a StarShip then possibly  yes.That is close to the warp coil/core.

[FVA_C_ Blade_ XC]

"Erratic maneuvers" never made any sense to me from a physics standpoint.
Little jinks for some thing moving at great velocities? That's a HUGE impulse to impart.
and that's one heckofa acceleration! 0 to c in 0.1 sec?!?! Whoa nelly!
Think of it as a rifle bullet "jinking" in flight. Tumbling, sure. Jinking at 0.25c?!?

The electronic jamming "ghost sensor images, etc" of ECM in SFB and the corresponding increase in sensor power (ECCM) to "burn through" the jamming makes more sense (to me). Sure would be MUCH cheaper and effective power-wise.

Reality Check Disclaimer: This is only a game. For example, if incorporating AV makes the game fun to play-> so be it!

I have never heard of Submarines jaming other Torpedoes countermeasures yes/AirPlanes can use countermeasures to btw.I have never heard of Submarines chargeing thier Torpedoes.This is what puzzles me chargeing a photon torpedo?

A Photon torp is just a case until the energy from the warp core is applied to it.

It would seem rather rash to hold all thoes torps if they were ready for use,one good hit and splat your ship would be no more.

Then what about real Submarines then?They don't have to take the energy from the reactor to supply energy to the Torpedo.What about conventional Submarines torpedos.When fired upon from another tarpedo the Subs would be splat anyways.I would say that when the magazine that holds all the torpedos get it on a StarShip then possibly  yes.That is close to the warp coil/core.

Yes but modern torpedos use conventional exploisives,yes if hit the could explode easily,but if they had a chance to be hit the sub would be doomed at that point anyways.

You are also forgetting that the Federation ship are not ment for a pure war role,hence would not have every weapon ready to go.

The photon is an energy weapon,the case just holds that energy and is the guidence system.

[The Pelican]

The Photon Torpedo is a powerful, long range weapon which has been in use aboard Federation Starships for over one hundred and fifty years - early models differed from today's weapon only in the level of sophistication and the power of the warhead. Today the weapon most widely used by Starfleet vessels is the Type 6. This weapon comprises an elongated elliptical body some 210 cm long and 76 x 45 cm across. The torpedo masses 247.5 kilos when not loaded.1
The warhead of the photon torpedo comprises a maximum of 1.5 kilos of antimatter and 1.5 kilos of matter. These are divided into many thousands of small pellets suspended in a magnetic field - smaller yields can be achieved by reducing the number of such pellets in the torpedo.1

Also included in the torpedo are target acquisition, guidance and detonation assemblies and a warp sustainer unit. The latter is charged by the launching vessels own drive field at launch, boosting the torpedo speed up to Vmax = Vl + (0.75 Vl / c), where Vl is the velocity of the launching vessel. If launched at low impulse flight the torpedo will accelerate to a 75% higher sublight velocity; launch at high impulse speed will not push the torpedo into warp. If launched during warp flight the torpedo will continue at warp until the sustainer is exhausted. Torpedo range can be extended by utilizing the matter / antimatter warhead to power the sustainer, although this causes a corresponding loss of warhead yield.1 For a mid-range yield the torpedo can achieve ranges of some 3,500,000 kilometres at sublight speeds.2


---------------------

A Photon Torpedo's Explosive Power does NOT come from the Warp Core, but comes from the Matter/Anti-Matter reaction. The "charging" is only to power everything else that the Torpedo needs to find it's way to it's target.

[Byzantine]

I had thought the 'charging' represented the loading of the torps antimatter at time of launch and the drain this caused on the supply of antimatter available for power.

[FVA_C_ Blade_ XC]

I had thought the 'charging' represented the loading of the torps antimatter at time of launch and the drain this caused on the supply of antimatter available for power.

exactly

[Age]

The Photon Torpedo is a powerful, long range weapon which has been in use aboard Federation Starships for over one hundred and fifty years - early models differed from today's weapon only in the level of sophistication and the power of the warhead. Today the weapon most widely used by Starfleet vessels is the Type 6. This weapon comprises an elongated elliptical body some 210 cm long and 76 x 45 cm across. The torpedo masses 247.5 kilos when not loaded.1
The warhead of the photon torpedo comprises a maximum of 1.5 kilos of antimatter and 1.5 kilos of matter. These are divided into many thousands of small pellets suspended in a magnetic field - smaller yields can be achieved by reducing the number of such pellets in the torpedo.1

Also included in the torpedo are target acquisition, guidance and detonation assemblies and a warp sustainer unit. The latter is charged by the launching vessels own drive field at launch, boosting the torpedo speed up to Vmax = Vl + (0.75 Vl / c), where Vl is the velocity of the launching vessel. If launched at low impulse flight the torpedo will accelerate to a 75% higher sublight velocity; launch at high impulse speed will not push the torpedo into warp. If launched during warp flight the torpedo will continue at warp until the sustainer is exhausted. Torpedo range can be extended by utilizing the matter / antimatter warhead to power the sustainer, although this causes a corresponding loss of warhead yield.1 For a mid-range yield the torpedo can achieve ranges of some 3,500,000 kilometres at sublight speeds.2


---------------------

A Photon Torpedo's Explosive Power does NOT come from the Warp Core, but comes from the Matter/Anti-Matter reaction. The "charging" is only to power everything else that the Torpedo needs to find it's way to it's target.

This is a great explanation Pelican.You seem to know your stuff.

[airBiscuit]

Have you ever been just started to take an action and then your eyes saw this would be bad but the signal to stop does not reach your hand in time?  Perfect lock, eyes on target, and just as you squeeze the trigger the target turns.  Dang!  Missed.  That is EM to me and no amount of pinging, even continuous, will change that outcome.

You have to remember that the targeting computers play an enormous role in the firing sequence.  The Lieutenant the pushes the fire button is effectively telling the computer, 'It's okay to fire now.'  At that point, the targeting computer takes over and in a nanosecond makes final corrections to its firing position before letting 'er rip.  It's now down to a battle between the firer's computer and the target's computer.  Both will have relatively the same reaction times and prediction abilities, so it boils down to whether the target computer has been using its sensors to a greater degree (EM) to get the nanosecond-timed information to make an effective firing adjustment or throw false sensor returns.  The targeting ship is attempting to make greater use of its sensors (more arrays, higher sampling frequencies, greater computer utilization) to counter this to place its shot on target.

It's not too hard to imagine a connection between evasive maneuvers and ECCM because the final firing solution is up to each ship's use of sensors and computing power.  And yes, computers do draw more power when they are working hard.  Why do you think the new boxes of today are starting to demand 500 W power supplies?  We could draw the same parallel to 23rd century computers.  Vastly more sophisticated, still requiring power to perform operations.

At least with SFB it can't possibly be like that.  If your computer is targetting a 600 meter vessel at a range of say, 150,000km travelling at 15c its not going to matter what little jinks the target is making, you've already got one hell of a computer system just to get any sort of resolution on that target.  EM in SFB is basically playing with the warp fields to confuse sensors.  At least thats the impression I've gotten.

That could certainly be one method, but I also believe that false sensor returns, subspace noise, and split-second course adjustments can also be a factor, though the latter would probably apply to EM.

If you think about it, "little jinks" would make an absolutely HUGE difference. Remember, the computer has to pick the exact course the target is going to be travelling on, and then fire the Torpedo so that when the Torpedo travels the required distance, it hits the target. At that distance, even 0.01 degrees will make you miss by miles. And that's without the ship attempting an Evasive Maneouvre, which would make another huge difference.

I tend to think of beam weapons as requiring that the shot be right the first time, but torpedoes to not be quite so picky, since they have mid-flight guidance systems.  The precision of the initial targeting would indeed depend on the travel time to target, since a millisecond would not be much time to make a course correction, but at longer ranges and lower closure velocities, you could very well have enough travel time for the torpedo to correct itself in mid-flight.

[SSCF-LeRoy]

Speaking conjecturally here...

Computers of the 23rd/24th centuries would undoubtedly have a VAST processing capacity for calculating the velocity of objects moving at high percentages of C as well as at speeds faster than C. Irregular maneuvers at such speeds would definitely make the calculation of targeting solutions more complicated, but perhaps not to the point where weapons accuracy is significantly reduced. That's why electronic warfare would be required to to jam enemy sensors by "blinding" them with excessive amounts of electromagnetic radiation directed at the targeting ship (think of this as being like a guy with a gun being blinded with a flashlight). Unless the targeting ship cancels out this interference, his weapons will at best have a garbled view of the target. His weapons would be flying blind mostly. Erratic maneuvers would enhance the effect since the targeting ship wouldn't be able to get a good look at how the target is moving. The size of the vessel would further determine a weapon's chance to hit.

Terminology:

ECM= a powerful beam of energy directed towards an opponent for the purpose of canceling out his scanner emissions and flooding his sensors with electronic noise, preventing them from picking up anything else.

ECCM= (1) extra power diverted to scanners so their emissions aren't canceled out so easily and (2) an opposing beam of energy meant to cancel out enemy jamming.

Scanner= active tracking system that emits some sort of energy wave that will reflect off of an object.

Sensor= device that passively collects stimuli.

[Death_Merchant]

Assuming starships moving slower than c, "jinking" would have no effect on beam weapons that move at c.

The speed of light is always the same (specifically, 300000 km/s) to all observers , regardless of the speed of the observer or the phaser emitter. So even if your ship is traveling at 150000 km/s, a phaser beam would still pass you going 300000 km/s or approach you going 300000 km/s. What happens is that as you travel faster and approach the speed of light, distances shorten and time slows down so that light still travels at 300000 km/s relative to you.

Translation: You don't "lead" your target if you have a flashlight.

Now if you are fighting in magical "subspace", all bets are off.
In "subspace", you can do anything the writers want

[Byzantine]

Assuming starships moving slower than c, "jinking" would have no effect on beam weapons that move at c.

The speed of light is always the same (specifically, 300000 km/s) to all observers , regardless of the speed of the observer or the phaser emitter. So even if your ship is traveling at 150000 km/s, a phaser beam would still pass you going 300000 km/s or approach you going 300000 km/s. What happens is that as you travel faster and approach the speed of light, distances shorten and time slows down so that light still travels at 300000 km/s relative to you.

Translation: You don't "lead" your target if you have a flashlight.

Now if you are fighting in magical "subspace", all bets are off.
In "subspace", you can do anything the writers want

Light is very fast, but space is very big.  The Moon is 38 hexes distant by SFB scales.  That is about 1.3 seconds at light speed.  A phaser shot at half that range (19 hexes) still takes .6 sec or so TOT (time to reach target).  A target moving at .01C (1/100 lightspeed) will move about 200km in that time.

Hmm.  200km and .6sec before the already fired shot (that you don't even know was fired) reaches you.  I would say that if you just happened to be initiating some random maneuver at the instant of firing there is no telling where you are going to be (within a kilometer of accuracy) at the end of that .6sec.  No matter how much power or how good the computers/scanners/sensors were on that firing ship.

I remember reading a Designers Note in SFB many years ago.  They recognised that combat at those ranges and speeds was not a practicality but wanted to stay true to the show.  They worked through this by saying that phasers, as they envision them in the game, do not fire a steady straight line beam but sweep in minute arcs.  This gives the phaser more area coverage and explains why the damage table for phasers is more of a 'how much hit' as opposed to a 'hit or miss'.

[The Pelican]

Beam Weapons, no, but Torpedoes, yes. Even the most advanced computer possible is STILL only making an educated guess when a ship is performing erratic maneouvres. And the Torpedo STILL has to compensate for the Evasive Maneouvre. The computer CANNOT do that.

And no, the charging of a Torpedo does NOT include the loading of matter or anti-matter. It is already in the torpedo. What is charged is the Torpedoes Power System, which is needed to power the computer, the detonator, the guidance system, etc. The Explosive Power is already there, but it's in a very secure setup which means they do not mix, otherwise they would explode in the torpedo bay. By charging them before firing, you ensure that nothing goes wrong with the detonation system while it is being transported, or even just in storage.

You'd need something vastly more sophisiticated to confuse a computer at that level of technology. A computer that advanced is not going to track a ship, then suddenly pick it up in a completely different location. It would automatically KNOW that something was being used to disguise the location of the target and would be able to either compensate for the confusing element to re-locate the ship. Or estimate the ships location based on previous position and trajectory.

The only way you could possibly confuse a computer that advanced is via pre-planning. Example would be the Voyager Episode where they use Holographic Projectors to create a "fake ship" - as it was Holographic, it was essentially solid, and it was enough to confuse the enemies computer long enough for them to fire their weapons, giving Voyager a free hit.

[Byzantine]

And no, the charging of a Torpedo does NOT include the loading of matter or anti-matter. It is already in the torpedo. What is charged is the Torpedoes Power System, which is needed to power the computer, the detonator, the guidance system, etc. The Explosive Power is already there, but it's in a very secure setup which means they do not mix, otherwise they would explode in the torpedo bay. By charging them before firing, you ensure that nothing goes wrong with the detonation system while it is being transported, or even just in storage.

That would be why the power for a photon can only come from warp power and no other source in SFB?  Warp engines being the ones with antimatter?

I agree with your statement based on modern published Trek reference materials but I disagree as far as original SFB usage.

[Cleaven]

Can one deploy a counter-measure that might distract a seeking weapon from it's intended target?

[Death_Merchant]

Can one deploy a counter-measure that might distract a seeking weapon from it's intended target?

As I recall, SFB fighters could employ a rule that simulated a chaff deployment.
If my calcified, ancient, brain is correct; a drone would lose lock-on if you rolled a 5 or 6.

The SFB argument stated that chaff was ineffective for ships due to the large size and sensor signature of a starship.

...or some such pseudo-technical mumbo-jumbo

[The Pelican]

And no, the charging of a Torpedo does NOT include the loading of matter or anti-matter. It is already in the torpedo. What is charged is the Torpedoes Power System, which is needed to power the computer, the detonator, the guidance system, etc. The Explosive Power is already there, but it's in a very secure setup which means they do not mix, otherwise they would explode in the torpedo bay. By charging them before firing, you ensure that nothing goes wrong with the detonation system while it is being transported, or even just in storage.

That would be why the power for a photon can only come from warp power and no other source in SFB?  Warp engines being the ones with antimatter?

I agree with your statement based on modern published Trek reference materials but I disagree as far as original SFB usage.

I'm not referencing SFB, nor will I ever reference it. Namely as I've never played it!!! Never even heard of it till I came to the Taldren forums. (And even then I was just looking for a link to the latest EAW Patch.)

[Byzantine]

And no, the charging of a Torpedo does NOT include the loading of matter or anti-matter. It is already in the torpedo. What is charged is the Torpedoes Power System, which is needed to power the computer, the detonator, the guidance system, etc. The Explosive Power is already there, but it's in a very secure setup which means they do not mix, otherwise they would explode in the torpedo bay. By charging them before firing, you ensure that nothing goes wrong with the detonation system while it is being transported, or even just in storage.

That would be why the power for a photon can only come from warp power and no other source in SFB?  Warp engines being the ones with antimatter?

I agree with your statement based on modern published Trek reference materials but I disagree as far as original SFB usage.

I'm not referencing SFB, nor will I ever reference it. Namely as I've never played it!!! Never even heard of it till I came to the Taldren forums. (And even then I was just looking for a link to the latest EAW Patch.)

Sorry Pelican,
There had been reference to SFB based ECM and ECCM modifiers for SFC2 so I had gone in that direction.  I fully support your photon posts as regards SFC3 and modern source material.

[airBiscuit]

Assuming starships moving slower than c, "jinking" would have no effect on beam weapons that move at c.
The speed of light is always the same (specifically, 300000 km/s) to all observers , regardless of the speed of the observer or the phaser emitter. So even if your ship is traveling at 150000 km/s, a phaser beam would still pass you going 300000 km/s or approach you going 300000 km/s. What happens is that as you travel faster and approach the speed of light, distances shorten and time slows down so that light still travels at 300000 km/s relative to you.

conjecture:
This time-dilation effect is mitigated by Trek ships under impulse power.  A sub-cochrane field is generated which lightens the apparent mass of the ship and decouples the ship's inertia from real-space.  Light still reaches the ship at the speed of light, but the detected emissions are diffracted along the subspace field horizon before intersecting with the ship.  Therefore, time dilation is not necessary for light to appear to be the same velocity, even as the subspace diffraction causes a rainbow 'smearing' of the light image.  In any case, Trek ships are not bound by the laws of Einsteinian physics, especially with the fact that they routinely approach light speed and can cross the light speed barrier.

Light is very fast, but space is very big.  The Moon is 38 hexes distant by SFB scales.  That is about 1.3 seconds at light speed.  A phaser shot at half that range (19 hexes) still takes .6 sec or so TOT (time to reach target).  A target moving at .01C (1/100 lightspeed) will move about 200km in that time.
Hmm.  200km and .6sec before the already fired shot (that you don't even know was fired)

You make a good point about the extreme ranges that the weapons are being fired at, but here you also suggest that the target ship would not know the shot was fired.  This would presuppose that these ships do not have faster than light sensors, which is not the case.  As long as they can actively and passively scan in subspace, the computer will know that a shot is being fired at it before the strike.

...reaches you.  I would say that if you just happened to be initiating some random maneuver at the instant of firing there is no telling where you are going to be (within a kilometer of accuracy) at the end of that .6sec.  No matter how much power or how good the computers/scanners/sensors were on that firing ship.

Unless FTL sensors are in effect, and like an earlier person pointed out, it's all about how many 'pings' you throw at the ship to get the most effective reading.  It's never perfect, but there is always better.  The target ship can attempt random maneuvers, but can also react to a fired shot, provided it has sufficient maneuvering power to make a difference.  The firing computer can hold its shot until it feels the ship is committed to its course.  It's a cat and mouse game at the nanosecond level.

[airBiscuit]

Beam Weapons, no, but Torpedoes, yes. Even the most advanced computer possible is STILL only making an educated guess when a ship is performing erratic maneouvres. And the Torpedo STILL has to compensate for the Evasive Maneouvre. The computer CANNOT do that.

With FTL sensors, the computer can indeed assist the shot.

And no, the charging of a Torpedo does NOT include the loading of matter or anti-matter. It is already in the torpedo. What is charged is the Torpedoes Power System, which is needed to power the computer, the detonator, the guidance system, etc. The Explosive Power is already there, but it's in a very secure setup which means they do not mix, otherwise they would explode in the torpedo bay. By charging them before firing, you ensure that nothing goes wrong with the detonation system while it is being transported, or even just in storage.

I am fine with that idea.

You'd need something vastly more sophisiticated to confuse a computer at that level of technology. A computer that advanced is not going to track a ship, then suddenly pick it up in a completely different location. It would automatically KNOW that something was being used to disguise the location of the target and would be able to either compensate for the confusing element to re-locate the ship. Or estimate the ships location based on previous position and trajectory.

The only way you could possibly confuse a computer that advanced is via pre-planning. Example would be the Voyager Episode where they use Holographic Projectors to create a "fake ship" - as it was Holographic, it was essentially solid, and it was enough to confuse the enemies computer long enough for them to fire their weapons, giving Voyager a free hit.

It's true that your first case would not be a very effective spoof, unless the real ship wasn't being tracked before the spoofing went up.  What does work effectively is to have the spoofing program work off the initial trajectory parameters of the ship its protecting, and then veer off from the ship's true trajectory, keeping to reasonable movement paramters so that the spoofing looks real.

However, I think that EW in SFC typically 'blurs' the detected image of the ship by the firer and makes it difficult to pinpoint the shot.  It could potentially even 'white-out' that section of space around the ship, but this wouldn't make the ship invisible like a cloaking device, just difficult to acquire and lock on, especially if pattern matching algorithms are being used.

[airBiscuit]

That would be why the power for a photon can only come from warp power and no other source in SFB?  Warp engines being the ones with antimatter?
I agree with your statement based on modern published Trek reference materials but I disagree as far as original SFB usage.

There's a good explanation for that.  The torpedo gets it's launch propulsion from the warp drive.  Since the torpedoes have warp-sustainer coils, warp power is needed to prime them for the kick out the door.  Now at sublight speeds, this warp energy is still used due to its strong power impulse, but the torpedo only gets primed to sub-cochrane levels.  The torpedo expends its drive fuel with the coils active and then kicks in the M/AM reaction for very long flight times.

[airBiscuit]

Can one deploy a counter-measure that might distract a seeking weapon from it's intended target?

Sure.  It's called a Wild Weasel.  However, your ship has to slow way down (speed 4?) to not give yourself away.  The Wild Weasel broadcasts a signal that makes it appear to the seeking weapon as the target ship, and the real target ship slowly slips away.

[Tulwar]

Light is very fast, but space is very big.  The Moon is 38 hexes distant by SFB scales.  That is about 1.3 seconds at light speed.  A phaser shot at half that range (19 hexes) still takes .6 sec or so TOT (time to reach target).  A target moving at .01C (1/100 lightspeed) will move about 200km in that time.

I'm not sure if 10,000 km is 1 c/s distance, but the SFB rules say it take a ship moving at c to cross one hex per turn, thus a ship firing at the Earth from the Moon's orbit would be pretty close to point blank, and Sol would be in overload range.  Miniature rules might be different, or I could be reading from an obsolete edition of SFB.

The warp factor scale from TOS is exponents of c, thus warp 1 is c, and warp 4 is 16c.  The maximum speed ships can engage each other is somewhere between warp 5 and 6.  Note that the scale has changed in TNG where warp 10 is infinite speed.

SFB also has rules for "disengagement by sublight evasion" whereby ships not equipped with a warp core may disappear under impulse power.

The makers of SFB were thinking in large scales.  EW appears in SFB as a simplified abstraction assuming all ships have similar sensor suites.

Has anyone seen a picture of the USS Enterprize (the aircraft carrier) as it appeared in the 1960's?  The superstructure was covered with antennas for EW.  The designers intended that it use those nuclear powerplants to make some serious electronic noise!

[Cleaven]

Can one deploy a counter-measure that might distract a seeking weapon from it's intended target?

Sure.  It's called a Wild Weasel.  However, your ship has to slow way down (speed 4?) to not give yourself away.  The Wild Weasel broadcasts a signal that makes it appear to the seeking weapon as the target ship, and the real target ship slowly slips away.

Does TNG have the same sort of thing for it's seeking weapons?

[Byzantine]

Can one deploy a counter-measure that might distract a seeking weapon from it's intended target?

Sure.  It's called a Wild Weasel.  However, your ship has to slow way down (speed 4?) to not give yourself away.  The Wild Weasel broadcasts a signal that makes it appear to the seeking weapon as the target ship, and the real target ship slowly slips away.

Does TNG have the same sort of thing for it's seeking weapons?

If by TNG you mean SFC3 then no - there are no seeking weapons and thus no need for Wild Weasel.  If you meant something else then, as Emily Litella would say, never mind.

[Byzantine]

Light is very fast, but space is very big.  The Moon is 38 hexes distant by SFB scales.  That is about 1.3 seconds at light speed.  A phaser shot at half that range (19 hexes) still takes .6 sec or so TOT (time to reach target).  A target moving at .01C (1/100 lightspeed) will move about 200km in that time.

I'm not sure if 10,000 km is 1 c/s distance, but the SFB rules say it take a ship moving at c to cross one hex per turn, thus a ship firing at the Earth from the Moon's orbit would be pretty close to point blank, and Sol would be in overload range.  Miniature rules might be different, or I could be reading from an obsolete edition of SFB.

The warp factor scale from TOS is exponents of c, thus warp 1 is c, and warp 4 is 16c.  The maximum speed ships can engage each other is somewhere between warp 5 and 6.  Note that the scale has changed in TNG where warp 10 is infinite speed.

SFB also has rules for "disengagement by sublight evasion" whereby ships not equipped with a warp core may disappear under impulse power.

The makers of SFB were thinking in large scales.  EW appears in SFB as a simplified abstraction assuming all ships have similar sensor suites.

Has anyone seen a picture of the USS Enterprize (the aircraft carrier) as it appeared in the 1960's?  The superstructure was covered with antennas for EW.  The designers intended that it use those nuclear powerplants to make some serious electronic noise!

SFB game scale:  1 hex = 10,000 k
Distance to moon:  384,000 k = 38 hex
Light speed:  299,792 k/sec = 30 hex/sec

SFB scale from Commanders Rulebook c1983
(A3.4)GAME SCALE
Each hex in SFB represents an area 10,000 k across.  Movement at a speed of one hex per turn equals movement at the speed of light.  Thus, each turn represents 1/30 of a second of subjective time.  However, using relativistic variable time distortion, the time elapsed during a turn appears to the crew inside the ship to be about a minute.

Relativistic time compression is actually suposed to work the other way around, but I will chalk it up to warp drive technology?

[airBiscuit]

SFB game scale:  1 hex = 10,000 k
Distance to moon:  384,000 k = 38 hex
Light speed:  299,792 k/sec = 30 hex/sec

SFB scale from Commanders Rulebook c1983
(A3.4)GAME SCALE
Each hex in SFB represents an area 10,000 k across.  Movement at a speed of one hex per turn equals movement at the speed of light.  Thus, each turn represents 1/30 of a second of subjective time.  However, using relativistic variable time distortion, the time elapsed during a turn appears to the crew inside the ship to be about a minute.

Relativistic time compression is actually suposed to work the other way around, but I will chalk it up to warp drive technology?

It's quite a stretch isn't it?  Well, we would definitely have to chalk it up to warp technology, and it does take care of the issues with scaling and time on the gameboard.  It may be this 'time-compression' of warp drive that helps to counter 'time-dilation' effects of approaching and crossing the light speed barrier.  It also means that extended travel at warp could result in accelerated aging versus folks back at Starfleet HQ. The 'twin-paradox' taken the other direction.  It would seem to make operations at such high speeds more manageable as well, since anything you observe on your sensors outside the warp bubble not also going at warp would seem to move in slow-motion, thereby making weapon tracking that much easier.