Star Army
Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.
Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.
-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
About Intediction Field related technology
- Thread starter Fred
- Start date
Fred
Retired Staff
So, the usual 'interdiction field' used limits ships from using FTL only if they use their own system to counter it - at which point they get 25% (more than enough to make a clean getaway).
I hold concerns about how any ship can just use that option and get away. I also wonder about the range the system has. Wes, do you have ideas as to how to address this? *scratches head* It seems to me we still can't escape the issue that bigger is better and that some way of countering it must be possible or freighters would always run away from pirates using FTL.
I hold concerns about how any ship can just use that option and get away. I also wonder about the range the system has. Wes, do you have ideas as to how to address this? *scratches head* It seems to me we still can't escape the issue that bigger is better and that some way of countering it must be possible or freighters would always run away from pirates using FTL.
What if we came up with an in-game explanation that says:
"Weapon systems don't aim properly when Anti-FTL and Anti-Anti-FTL systems are competing."
This gives ships with Anti-Anti-FTL the option of running with 25% FTL or fighting in STL.
I want my plot ships to have options -- sometimes the Mishhu forces are just too big to fight!
"Weapon systems don't aim properly when Anti-FTL and Anti-Anti-FTL systems are competing."
This gives ships with Anti-Anti-FTL the option of running with 25% FTL or fighting in STL.
I want my plot ships to have options -- sometimes the Mishhu forces are just too big to fight!
Fred
Retired Staff
This isn't about fighting the Mishhu. They actually weren't even what I was considering. I was actually thinking about an Odori freighter running away from a pirate ship. Even with your ingame explanation, it just seems like the Odori could always easily slip away, despite power usage and such, thanks to attacks being even harder to aim - thus in a way worsening the problem. This is what concerns me: I'd like to give piracy a chance too.
But I wholeheartedly agree about giving players options.
How about making the use of Anti-FTL counters hinder the use of defensive shielding and give it a delay (much like the time to charge a fold drive) for the anti-FTL counter to come to full capacity, thus allowing the ship to then leap to FTL speed.
That way, you leave a window of opportunity for the hostile ship to fire and try to disable the fleeing ship, you give it the opportunity to try and lock a graviton beam on it to stop it from going to superluminal speeds (perhaps graviton beams do bad things to FTL engines too?) since the ship's shielding is off.
Meanwhile, the navigator has something to do as she tries to weave and dodge attacks/graviton beam lock while the person in charge of engines tries to speed up the process and the person in charge of tactical systems decides to take weapons offline to restore some semblance of rear shielding anyways.
At least this'd make it somewhat difficult. I'm not claiming this would be the best solution - but I was thinking something along those lines, since the ship projecting the Anti-FTL field is already expending resources doing it (or so I'd think).
Momentary vulnerability before escaping battle seems a decent price to pay to me. Otherwise, you'd only see ships commited to combat without being able to as handily flee when in a defender role - attackers could run away whenever they like.
But I wholeheartedly agree about giving players options.
How about making the use of Anti-FTL counters hinder the use of defensive shielding and give it a delay (much like the time to charge a fold drive) for the anti-FTL counter to come to full capacity, thus allowing the ship to then leap to FTL speed.
That way, you leave a window of opportunity for the hostile ship to fire and try to disable the fleeing ship, you give it the opportunity to try and lock a graviton beam on it to stop it from going to superluminal speeds (perhaps graviton beams do bad things to FTL engines too?) since the ship's shielding is off.
Meanwhile, the navigator has something to do as she tries to weave and dodge attacks/graviton beam lock while the person in charge of engines tries to speed up the process and the person in charge of tactical systems decides to take weapons offline to restore some semblance of rear shielding anyways.
At least this'd make it somewhat difficult. I'm not claiming this would be the best solution - but I was thinking something along those lines, since the ship projecting the Anti-FTL field is already expending resources doing it (or so I'd think).
Momentary vulnerability before escaping battle seems a decent price to pay to me. Otherwise, you'd only see ships commited to combat without being able to as handily flee when in a defender role - attackers could run away whenever they like.
Fred
Retired Staff
@Wes:
Then we hit the next question: which ships would have the right to possess interdiction fields and anti-interdiction fields? I think I recall the Vampire was lauded for being a patrolship which had an interdiction field, so, I'd guess the former and latter would apply to technology restricted to police forces and militaries...
...but that's still pretty damn vague aside from observing that civilian transports are pretty much sitting ducks to any bad pirate mofo with an interdiction field scrounged up on his craft (though the rarity of them over the civilian market could make them pretty valuable), and that pirates don't really have a nice time standing up to military vessels with interdiction drives but no means for anti-interdiction. Militaries have both, which means they can generally flee whenever they want unless they have something worth dying for.
...if I had that power system article discussion up, I could probably better address the give-and-take relationship anti-FTL system ought to have. ~_~ This isn't easy to figure out.
@Toshiro
My guess: it could be either when you're in close proximity to stellar bodies like star systems... but in that instances, it'd be shortlived as I don't expect this to have much of an impact once 1 lightyear distant, where optimal conditions would likely be.
or...
It might have more to do with the defense networks Yamatai has established to help them control traffic. Such long range 'interdiction' might not stop ships traveling through hyperspace to a certain destination, but it does allow for more time to react if an invasion force comes in.
Then we hit the next question: which ships would have the right to possess interdiction fields and anti-interdiction fields? I think I recall the Vampire was lauded for being a patrolship which had an interdiction field, so, I'd guess the former and latter would apply to technology restricted to police forces and militaries...
...but that's still pretty damn vague aside from observing that civilian transports are pretty much sitting ducks to any bad pirate mofo with an interdiction field scrounged up on his craft (though the rarity of them over the civilian market could make them pretty valuable), and that pirates don't really have a nice time standing up to military vessels with interdiction drives but no means for anti-interdiction. Militaries have both, which means they can generally flee whenever they want unless they have something worth dying for.
...if I had that power system article discussion up, I could probably better address the give-and-take relationship anti-FTL system ought to have. ~_~ This isn't easy to figure out.
@Toshiro
My guess: it could be either when you're in close proximity to stellar bodies like star systems... but in that instances, it'd be shortlived as I don't expect this to have much of an impact once 1 lightyear distant, where optimal conditions would likely be.
or...
It might have more to do with the defense networks Yamatai has established to help them control traffic. Such long range 'interdiction' might not stop ships traveling through hyperspace to a certain destination, but it does allow for more time to react if an invasion force comes in.
Zack
Inactive Member
Lets not add more numbers to this. 1-10 would be more coherent with the other rules sets but if we are going to go this route then:
I think you mean An Anti-FTL field in the underlined segment.
-Also, I think a star would have a higher gravitational output than a planet. Perhaps it should be moved one down and planet should be moved one up?
-Nebulas and Debries represent a physical barrier to FTL rather than an interdiction field. Perhaps something else should be placed here instead like a near a blackhole or something along those lines?
-For the sake of realism at least FTL fields should stack but are they going to stack one at a time or are we going to use the 10 = one additional level kinda rule that we have with the DR system?
-It is stated that some engines can operate even in anti-FTL fields, or at least I remember reading that on older ships. Are we going to count this as an anti-interdiction field or is this going to negate interdiction?
-For the purpose of allowing ship designers more freedom I think it would be best to at least allow interdiction fields to be of varying strength up to 4. It probably won't see a lot of use but I'm sure someone somewhere will want to have some bootleg interdiction equipment.
-What is the difference between perfect and normal FTL conditions? I assume this is something like being away from physical objects and such?
I think you mean An Anti-FTL field in the underlined segment.
-Also, I think a star would have a higher gravitational output than a planet. Perhaps it should be moved one down and planet should be moved one up?
-Nebulas and Debries represent a physical barrier to FTL rather than an interdiction field. Perhaps something else should be placed here instead like a near a blackhole or something along those lines?
-For the sake of realism at least FTL fields should stack but are they going to stack one at a time or are we going to use the 10 = one additional level kinda rule that we have with the DR system?
-It is stated that some engines can operate even in anti-FTL fields, or at least I remember reading that on older ships. Are we going to count this as an anti-interdiction field or is this going to negate interdiction?
-For the purpose of allowing ship designers more freedom I think it would be best to at least allow interdiction fields to be of varying strength up to 4. It probably won't see a lot of use but I'm sure someone somewhere will want to have some bootleg interdiction equipment.
-What is the difference between perfect and normal FTL conditions? I assume this is something like being away from physical objects and such?
Toshiro
Inactive Member
To another point--
What is the statute on Interdiction Beams? Are they being removed for fairness? There IS something to be said for forcing both sides into STL rather than just one.
If not, then the gravitational explanation may allow some Graviton Beam Projectors to be considered Interdiction Beams as well.
What is the statute on Interdiction Beams? Are they being removed for fairness? There IS something to be said for forcing both sides into STL rather than just one.
If not, then the gravitational explanation may allow some Graviton Beam Projectors to be considered Interdiction Beams as well.
Fred
Retired Staff
I agree about Toshiro about the graviton beam bit. It might both be a very good way of countering a ship which just engaged an anti-anti-FTL field in the absence of gravimetric shielding - and also serve as a poor man's interdiction field to those not fortunate enough to have access to the full-fledged FTL drives.
The close range of the graviton beam and inventive uses it'd require for those operating it to bring it to bear ought to be worth it.
The close range of the graviton beam and inventive uses it'd require for those operating it to bring it to bear ought to be worth it.
Toshiro
Inactive Member
Of course, this only raises the question of effectiveness of the gravitational Interdiction Field against Gravitic Shielding/Antigravity Fields, which pretty much every modern ship has. >.>
I suggest we say that the gravity disrupts the respective FTL fields rather than needing to latch onto the ship entirely.
This means it'd work even on those with gravitic shielding.
I suggest we say that the gravity disrupts the respective FTL fields rather than needing to latch onto the ship entirely.
This means it'd work even on those with gravitic shielding.
Fred
Retired Staff
Unh, I was hoping to promote magnetic shielding over gravimetric - but I guess it wouldn't matter in either case. In one case, you have a good chance to latch on the ship, in the other, you might not latch on it but you're still applying extra gravitons on the ship - so, it'd work either way.
When a graviton beam would be used on a ship priming its anti-interdiction, there would also be the need to keep the lock on the ship that one would want to avoid escaping... so, it gives an option to avoid escape, though it'd involve active effort, close proximity and fancy flying.
However, seeing that ships must be able to tow one another, I'd say that having a graviton beam active doesn't hinder the superluminal of hyperspace fold systems of the vessel using it... else we'd never be able to tow ships from one system to another.
When a graviton beam would be used on a ship priming its anti-interdiction, there would also be the need to keep the lock on the ship that one would want to avoid escaping... so, it gives an option to avoid escape, though it'd involve active effort, close proximity and fancy flying.
However, seeing that ships must be able to tow one another, I'd say that having a graviton beam active doesn't hinder the superluminal of hyperspace fold systems of the vessel using it... else we'd never be able to tow ships from one system to another.
Fred
Retired Staff
Okay then. This means I really only have two issues to bring up:
1- Anti-Anti-FTL is a pretty cumbersome term. Anyway we can improve on the nomenclature? After all, the procedure also involves something about making conditions more ideal to use FTL drives in adverse conditions, so, perhaps a more positive name might be found?
2- When measures are made to activate anti-anti-FTL measures, I think I'd like it to be non-instantaneous and have it take time to prime up just so that the action might be able to be opposed.
1- Anti-Anti-FTL is a pretty cumbersome term. Anyway we can improve on the nomenclature? After all, the procedure also involves something about making conditions more ideal to use FTL drives in adverse conditions, so, perhaps a more positive name might be found?
2- When measures are made to activate anti-anti-FTL measures, I think I'd like it to be non-instantaneous and have it take time to prime up just so that the action might be able to be opposed.
This sounds good to me.
Hrm, trying to think of a fair way to add this in while still making things survivable for PCs.
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=anti-ftl_field
Updated!
Fred
Retired Staff
Well, there's still the thing with effective range that comes into play - especially if fields might stack (if you have more than one ship... fields might often stack).
I know I was a supporter of stacking earlier, but after Derran pointed some things out, I'm unsure of if stacking is such a good idea based on 'giving players a chance' mostly. I was under the impression the general consensus was that people preferred treating it as ECM and make it so that only the highest condition in an area was taken into account. AAFTL systems would pretty much regulate subspace in a local area.
Wes, what do you think of a priming time for an AAFTL system, preparation time for activating superluminal engines and the use of graviton beams in the fashion Toshiro and I tossed around in the posts above?
I know I was a supporter of stacking earlier, but after Derran pointed some things out, I'm unsure of if stacking is such a good idea based on 'giving players a chance' mostly. I was under the impression the general consensus was that people preferred treating it as ECM and make it so that only the highest condition in an area was taken into account. AAFTL systems would pretty much regulate subspace in a local area.
Wes, what do you think of a priming time for an AAFTL system, preparation time for activating superluminal engines and the use of graviton beams in the fashion Toshiro and I tossed around in the posts above?
Zack
Inactive Member
I meant that at least anti-interdiction fields should stack. It dosen't make sense for this to only work in one direction. After all enough anti-interdiction output should be able to overpower any level of interdiction output.
With these current rules battles are going to take a very long time to resolve and a very long time to just get to where the ships can effectively shoot at each other. Taking FTL away from ships entirely by stacking interdiction fields completely removing all FTL isn't any fun and takes options away from the players by not allowing them to overcome obstacles.
With these current rules battles are going to take a very long time to resolve and a very long time to just get to where the ships can effectively shoot at each other. Taking FTL away from ships entirely by stacking interdiction fields completely removing all FTL isn't any fun and takes options away from the players by not allowing them to overcome obstacles.
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=anti-ftl_field
Updated to reflect what happens when there's multiple Anti-FTL fields and AF countermeasures.
Fold systems are all supposed to have charging times roughly equivalent to main cannons (1-5 minutes) but CFS/CDD systems are supposed to be almost instant. That's the way I like it, too.
As for AAFTL systems, I don't see why they'd take time to charge since they can be maintained indefinitely. Maybe Anti-FTL and Anti-FTL Countermeasures would both take 15 seconds to take effect in the surrounding space, however.
Maybe graviton beams would take a full minute.
Updated to reflect what happens when there's multiple Anti-FTL fields and AF countermeasures.
I think that graviton beams are there for towing - perhaps they can be used as a single-target Anti-FTL field, I suppose (but it'd probably not work well). Directed Anti-Fields would work this way too, but well.
Fold systems are all supposed to have charging times roughly equivalent to main cannons (1-5 minutes) but CFS/CDD systems are supposed to be almost instant. That's the way I like it, too.
As for AAFTL systems, I don't see why they'd take time to charge since they can be maintained indefinitely. Maybe Anti-FTL and Anti-FTL Countermeasures would both take 15 seconds to take effect in the surrounding space, however.
Maybe graviton beams would take a full minute.
Fred
Retired Staff
I liked the idea of considering the graviton beams as a poor man's Anti-FTL field. It'd require some hefty preparation and likely an ambush to be able to use it in the first place... or in the case of stopping a ship activating AAFTL racing very close and latching to it to prevent its escape.
I didn't mean a very long delay for the superluminal drives, Wes. Something like 5 to 10 seconds. Enough for the sensor operator to warn "The SMX gunship is going to distorsion speed!" leave some time to react and WOOP! If they can't stop it the other ship is now far far away at 25% of its FTL speed (which is 1250c even for slow ships - amazingly fast!).
*pokes Zack* This is about as complicated as Rock-Scissors-Paper once you just get to know about it. I know you're conservative, but you're exagerating there: Either you are caught or not caught, either just one or many ships are using AAFTL systems; the result is either level 4 or level 3. *shrugs*
This is more setting conventions than anything else, really.
I didn't mean a very long delay for the superluminal drives, Wes. Something like 5 to 10 seconds. Enough for the sensor operator to warn "The SMX gunship is going to distorsion speed!" leave some time to react and WOOP! If they can't stop it the other ship is now far far away at 25% of its FTL speed (which is 1250c even for slow ships - amazingly fast!).
*pokes Zack* This is about as complicated as Rock-Scissors-Paper once you just get to know about it. I know you're conservative, but you're exagerating there: Either you are caught or not caught, either just one or many ships are using AAFTL systems; the result is either level 4 or level 3. *shrugs*
This is more setting conventions than anything else, really.
