You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → ECM/EPM
The combination of ECM and EPM seem to be natural, and I'm considering combining them as a Blanket EW (Electronic Warfare) stat that can be assigned either offensively or defensively, particularly for B5wars conversions.
Also, Why Electronic Protection Measures for the counter-ecm mode? Since it is "offensive" perhaps Electronic Penetration Measures?
Just digging through the rules for real for the first time today so I'm probably way off-base 
Cheers,
Erik
This is why EPM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_warfare#Electronic_protection
The combination of ECM and EPM seem to be natural, and I'm considering combining them as a Blanket EW (Electronic Warfare) stat that can be assigned either offensively or defensively, particularly for B5wars conversions.....
Same here. I love this rule. It offers some additional tactical options but also works perfectly for B5 Wars 
This is why EPM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_warfare#Electronic_protection
Ah, so it is a real world, bland, MilSpeak, euphamistic term. If that's not a good reason not to use it, I don't know what is! 
Erik
Ah, so it is a real world, bland, MilSpeak, euphamistic term. If that's not a good reason not to use it, I don't know what is!
At least it's better than "ECCM" -- which immediately makes me wonder about "ECCCM".
Blacklancer99 wrote:Ah, so it is a real world, bland, MilSpeak, euphamistic term. If that's not a good reason not to use it, I don't know what is!
At least it's better than "ECCM" -- which immediately makes me wonder about "ECCCM".
Isn't ECCCM just ECM against ECCM? Would that be ECM^2? :roll:
I guess I'll just stick with referring to EPM and trying never to think of what it stands for!
Erik
Yup. The ECM/EPM thing is one of the rare occasions where I'm comfortable allowing ships to directly affect the capabilities of other ships...
cricket wrote:Blacklancer99 wrote:Ah, so it is a real world, bland, MilSpeak, euphamistic term. If that's not a good reason not to use it, I don't know what is!
At least it's better than "ECCM" -- which immediately makes me wonder about "ECCCM".
Isn't ECCCM just ECM against ECCM? Would that be ECM^2? :roll:
I guess I'll just stick with referring to EPM and trying never to think of what it stands for!
Erik
Don't know if y'all have ever played Stargrunt, but my god, their ECM rules were painful. We actually got up to ECCCCCCM (that's right, electronic counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-countermeasures) once during play. Resolving that was ugly...
Don't know if y'all have ever played Stargrunt, but my god, their ECM rules were painful. We actually got up to ECCCCCCM (that's right, electronic counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-countermeasures) once during play. Resolving that was ugly...
I own it and have played it, but have not encountered a "multi-C" effect.
Nomad wrote:Don't know if y'all have ever played Stargrunt, but my god, their ECM rules were painful. We actually got up to ECCCCCCM (that's right, electronic counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-countermeasures) once during play. Resolving that was ugly...
I own it and have played it, but have not encountered a "multi-C" effect.
Page 52 of the SGII rulebook lists "try and foil an attempted task by an opposing EW unit (ie: ECM, ECCM, ECCCM, and so on...)" as a legal EW task. Perhaps it's an SGI vs SGII difference (do not have / have not played SG1; should have specified)?
But that is beside the point. I too like the fact that SNE includes ECCM rules, and that they are nice and simple 
.
I too like the fact that SNE includes ECCM rules, and that they are nice and simple
Glad you approve.
I had been toying with allowing ships with the "Scout" ability to apply a level-1 EPM to any ship within X hexes... But that might start complicating things a bit too much.
Nomad wrote:I too like the fact that SNE includes ECCM rules, and that they are nice and simple
Glad you approve.
I had been toying with allowing ships with the "Scout" ability to apply a level-1 EPM to any ship within X hexes... But that might start complicating things a bit too much.
I do like the idea of Scouts being able to provide some degree of EPM for the benefit of other ships; it lessens the problem of "OK, they have no Escorts, so my Scouts are wasted points."
I do like the idea of Scouts being able to provide some degree of EPM for the benefit of other ships; it lessens the problem of "OK, they have no Escorts, so my Scouts are wasted points."
After some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I come up with this:
If a fleet includes at least one scout for every 500 points (or fraction thereof), all opposing ECM values are reduced by 1, to a minimum of zero.
Cool stuff here with the scouts guys. Having Scouts do some sort of EPM also would synergize quite well with implementing Scouts from Star Fleet.
You know.... if your opponent has neither escorts or ECM - then well still your scout does nothing... not that its bad - but maybe it would be good to give it a few more options to minimize this. How about an option for scouts to "use their scout ability" to:
- give a bonus to detect cloaked ships?
- reduce penalty to fire through a dust cloud?
- reduce penalty to fire at a ship with stealth (or is that the same as EPM?)
- etc
-Tim
Nomad wrote:I do like the idea of Scouts being able to provide some degree of EPM for the benefit of other ships; it lessens the problem of "OK, they have no Escorts, so my Scouts are wasted points."
After some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I come up with this:
If a fleet includes at least one scout for every 500 points (or fraction thereof), all opposing ECM values are reduced by 1, to a minimum of zero.
Sweet! I have wanted desperately for scouts to have a "real" game (insert oxymoron joke here) reason for being. I like this so much better than limiting them to a rock-paper-scissors relationship with escorts.
Cheers,
Erik
PS please don't save all these cool, late to arrive things for the next SNE supplement!
So, is it legal to build an "escort" with ECM 5 and Stealth 5? Sound annoying - is there an upper limit on ECM+Stealth?
-Tim
So, is it legal to build an "escort" with ECM 5 and Stealth 5? Sound annoying - is there an upper limit on ECM+Stealth?
Technically, no... there is no upper limit.
I can imagine cheesy ships...
The solution will be mouse ships!
And the counter-solution will be cat ships. Etc.
Looks like ECM, ECCM, ECCM again.
Marc
Marauder wrote:So, is it legal to build an "escort" with ECM 5 and Stealth 5? Sound annoying - is there an upper limit on ECM+Stealth?
Technically, no... there is no upper limit.
Isn't that a problem? You can make your ships immune to enemy fighters with a combine score of 7 and that is also a serious problem for ships attacking. If I look at most of the ships in the rulebook, unless they are a race that uses ECM, they will basically not be able to attack someone with a 7 shift.
If you want stealth and ECM to stack perhaps stealth should do something mechanically different - like add x hexs to the range between you?
-Tim
Isn't that a problem? You can make your ships immune to enemy fighters with a combine score of 7 and that is also a serious problem for ships attacking. If I look at most of the ships in the rulebook, unless they are a race that uses ECM, they will basically not be able to attack someone with a 7 shift.
If you want stealth and ECM to stack perhaps stealth should do something mechanically different - like add x hexs to the range between you?
-Tim
Check out the Alex Knight directory of the Drydock. The Cheap empire Glasc Cannon Gun-Ship escorted by the Degenerate class Shield ship. If I followed how the rules on "Escort" works correctly.
Check out the Alex Knight directory of the Drydock. The Cheap empire Glasc Cannon Gun-Ship escorted by the Degenerate class Shield ship. If I followed how the rules on "Escort" works correctly.
Lol, that combination could "sting" quite a bit!
-Tim
Though friendly escorts block your LOS too, so you're still going to have to stick your nose out where it can be hit if you want to shoot at anybody
Though friendly escorts block your LOS too, so you're still going to have to stick your nose out where it can be hit if you want to shoot at anybody
True, but chances are your opponent didn't take high ECM shield escorts. Though, conceptually, I'm finding the idea of shield-ships in this style fascinating. Perhaps not in the same abusive sense that those were designed in. But the idea that shields as we envision them require so much energy that you cannot have weapons on the same vessel as they could not function along side the shields. The positive side to this is that shields are a 'bubble'. So you have defenseless weapons carrier and a shield-ship or two.
FWIW, in order to have ECM 5 and Stealth 5, you would have to devote all of the space on a hull-13 ship just to those two systems.
What if the model isn't a ring of escorts around a single battleship with heavy weapons, but instead a ring of unarmed but very difficult to hit/damage escorts, a full six point ring in lockstep with the central *carrier* ship that has no space wasted on defenses or weapons, but as many Carriers as will fit into the hull while still allowing the ship to keep up with her escorts...
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → ECM/EPM
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.