Electronic Operations (EW): ECM, ECCM, and other cases of Electronic Warfare.

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

I'm looking at ElOps(EW), and trying to figure how it is actually USEFUL. In Spaceships, ECM work with no skill roll required, and only give minor modification (compared to slots used). I'm thinking of making the skill useful. My main idea is to allow it to make Feints (Offensive AND Defensive) and Ruses, both only resistable with EW. Oh, and I think all such Feints should be 'transferable'. I think the equipment should modify all rolls. Scanners and jammess should have a built-in modifier similar to 3e's Scan Rating for offsetting Range Penalties. EW should probably also be useable like Acrobatics for affecting Dodge, but ONLY when trying to jam a lock-on. Opinions? More ideas?

BTW, I'm not the GM, but I'm giving him ideas. Right now, my GM is drawing ideas from Eve Online, but I never played it. Oh, and he plans to focus on PLANETARY action, not spaceships.

Thanks!

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Opinions?

Just to give you a quick reality check, Molokh, nothing in your original post seemed out of line. I think you're heading down a fruitful path.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

I, too, am very interested in seeing this discussion develop, but have nothing of substance to add personally.

[vicky_molokh]

One of the problems is how to assign the jam rating to the ECM station? Another question is, Why is there no way to Obscure radio and RADAR (and other Scanning Senses) with such systems?

Some more abstract ideas from MA: doing a Beat-like effect to jam a specific targeting system for all purposes, as opposed to doing a 'regular' Feint?

Finally, how about adding half of MoS to Active Defenses? Too powerful?

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Finally, how about adding half of MoS to Active Defenses? Too powerful?

Way too powerful IMHO, but I like the Feint ideas.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Way too powerful IMHO, but I like the Feint ideas.

I just figured that +1 to AD is the same as -2 to Attack (as evidenced by the Deceptive/Telegraphic attack, and, to a lesser extent, by MA Technique Builder).

[Mgellis]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Greetings, all!

I'm looking at ElOps(EW), and trying to figure how it is actually USEFUL. In Spaceships, ECM work with no skill roll required, and only give minor modification (compared to slots used). I'm thinking of making the skill useful. My main idea is to allow it to make Feints (Offensive AND Defensive) and Ruses, both only resistable with EW. Oh, and I think all such Feints should be 'transferable'. I think the equipment should modify all rolls. Scanners and jammess should have a built-in modifier similar to 3e's Scan Rating for offsetting Range Penalties. EW should probably also be useable like Acrobatics for affecting Dodge, but ONLY when trying to jam a lock-on. Opinions? More ideas?

BTW, I'm not the GM, but I'm giving him ideas. Right now, my GM is drawing ideas from Eve Online, but I never played it. Oh, and he plans to focus on PLANETARY action, not spaceships.

Thanks!

High Tech, p. 46, suggests that the way to handle ECM is with Quick Contests of skill (e.g., the intruder's EO (EW) vs. the defender's EO (Sensors)). Along with various modifiers for power, range, etc.

Even if you're talking about ultra-tech sensors, the same basic approach should work pretty well.

I hope this helps.

Mark

[Cernig]

Can it be that simple a rules rewrite?

In the case of EW vs Sensors you do a Quick Contest of user skills. If the defender wins, then the vessel defended "drops off" even the attacker's passive sensors and must be reaquired. That vessel defended can't be targeted by that attacker that turn. (I say the "vessel defended" because I'd allow an ECM equipped vessel to defend against attacks on another vessel flying in formation with it. That's closer to RL useage.)

If using ECCM (same costs, mass and progression as ECM systems), then its a quick contest first of ECM vs ECCM. Only if the ECM user wins does he then get another Quick Contest to defeat the attacker's sensors.

You get as many chances at a Quick Contest (possibly against different attackers) as you have ECM or ECCM systems, or add them together for an increased bonus.

You could keep the rules near RAW and say an ECM is only effective if of the same or higher TL than the attacking spaceship (and an ECCM has to be of the same or higher TL than the spaceship with the ECM system) and the skill bonus is therefore +2 per ECM unit used.

OR

Rate and cost ECM/ECCM like basic control room sensors, using exactly the same TL+/- modifier for the purposes of bonuses to the Quick Contest. (If you like, you could have a "High-powered ECM/ECCM" option that progresses like an enhanced array and an "ultra-powered ECM/ECCM" that progresses like a tactical array.) In this case, the bonus to skill is the Level of the system and forget the bit about it having to be higher or equal TL. This makes ECM/ECCM more powerful and more of a combat decider, while still allowing a good EW operator to use lower TL equipment to beat a poorer high-TL operator. I like this because it more closely mirrors modern real-life EW. A 3-ECM system ship is now an EW beast - a dedicated EW combatant, especially if it has ECCM systems too - capable of using all its systems at once to really ruin an opponents day.

What do you think? Simple enough. And if missiles are self-guided, not using the launching ship's sensors, then they've at best a TL-6 sensor suite (they're SM3 max) and may not have an ECM/ECCM suite at all unless specially designed for that purpose(space considerations). That keeps missiles from being a game-winner even at X ranges without having to postulate superscience kinetic force fields.

Regards, C

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Cernig

That keeps missiles from being a game-winner even at X ranges without having to postulate superscience kinetic force fields.

I'd check the math on this assumption. As I recall there was a thread that went through the effectiveness of a tertiary missile battery and vs. a tertiary PD battery of VRF improved lasers. They came out ABOUT even, depending on a few factors.

EDIT: Here's the thread.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I'd check the math on this assumption. As I recall there was a thread that went through the effectiveness of a tertiary missile battery and vs. a tertiary PD battery of VRF improved lasers. They came out ABOUT even, depending on a few factors.

EDIT: Here's the thread.

C was talking about Dodge, not PD. It should be possible to defend by Dodging with the aid of an ECM station.