| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:34 pm Post subject: Ground Based Sensors |
 |
|
Compared to sensors in space, sensors in atmosphere are pretty anemic. For starters, almost no atmospheric craft actually have sensors. The ground based sensors that do exist are extremely limited in range. In fact, modern militaries already have radars and other sensors that outrange the sensors that exist in the SWU.
What I'm wondering is:
1). Should ground vehicles and airspeeders have sensors comparable to starfighters?
2). Should those ranges be extended so that they are superior to what we have available today?
3). How should space-based sensor ranges translate into atmospheric ranges?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | 1). Should ground vehicles and airspeeders have sensors comparable to starfighters? |
No
| Quote: | | 2). Should those ranges be extended so that they are superior to what we have available today? |
Well it would be nice if pilots could see faster than they can drive, which is not currently always the case. Other than that, any significant improvement in sensor technology will cause combat to look and behave very differently than what we see in the films. That's not a change I'm looking for. | Quote: | | 3). How should space-based sensor ranges translate into atmospheric ranges? |
Same formula as weapon ranges should work.
[removed the unnecessary bolding]
Last edited by Bren on Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:43 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | 1). Should ground vehicles and airspeeders have sensors comparable to starfighters? |
No |
Ok, why not? After all, in ESB, airspeeders are very clearly shown to have some form of sensors, yet WEG rules do not show any sensors for Walker-Scale craft or below.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | 2). Should those ranges be extended so that they are superior to what we have available today? |
Well it would be nice if pilots could see faster than they can drive, which is not currently always the case. Other than that, any significant improvement in sensor technology will cause combat to look and behave very differently than what we see in the films. That's not a change I'm looking for. |
Not sure I see your point. Why would combat action have to change just because sensor see further out?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | 3). How should space-based sensor ranges translate into atmospheric ranges? |
Same formula as weapon ranges should work. |
I'm thinking it would be more appropriate to convert sensor ranges in atmosphere by the Space-to-Orbital conversion (i.e. Space Units x 20 = kilometers). After all, we have airborne radar systems today with effective ranges of several hundred kilometers or more, so I don't see why sensor systems from a far more advanced technology would have drastically reduced range.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had added sensors to craft along time ago, I thought the lack of sensors on some vehicles to be an oversight.
Luke skywalkers piddly old beat up land speeder on tatooine even had scanners, he mentions it in the movie when they are looking for R2D2 and the pilot that found Han and Luke had scanners on his speeder, he mentions them in the movie.
Some of our airborne radars have ranges of several hundred miles not all of them nor do these radar systems detect life forms or all the other miriad things some of the star wars scanners can.
Saying we have sensors with longer ranges is a bit off the mark there.
Having radar with longer ranges than what the star wars sensors have does not mean we have all the sensors with longer ranges and we don't even have lifeform detector scanners to begin with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I usually X10 the ones listed..as i too find them shorter than they should be.
As for should all speeders/air speeders etc have them??>? No
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | 1). Should ground vehicles and airspeeders have sensors comparable to starfighters? |
No |
Ok, why not? |
Answer 1: Sensors should not comparable because starfighters move much faster than ground vehicles so they need better sensors. I don't have a problem with other vehicles having sensors. In fact I always assumed that they did. Just most ground vehicles don't have sensors that are as good as the sensors on a space ship.
Answer 2: Just because an F-22 (analogous to a starfighter) needs and has powerful sensors doesn't mean or require a police car (analogous to a ground vehicle) to have the same powerful sensors.
Answer 3: It is axiomatic that significantly changing sensor technology changes warfare.
| Quote: | | Not sure I see your point. Why would combat action have to change just because sensor see further out? |
It is axiomatic that a significant change in sensor technology changes warfare. For example, balloons had some effect on warfare in the Civil War. Radar had a huge effect on warfare in WWII. We see Star Wars vehicles fighting at nearly point blank ranges. If they truly had an ability to accurately detect and target hostile vehicles at ranges longer than we see in the films, why don't they do so in the films? Why did Han and Chewiee need to get within a stones throw of the probe droid to observe it. If you significantly enhance sensor capability than everyone should use it and thus warfare changes and so do the kinds of adventures PCs can have. What you have is not longer space opera, it's more like hard Sci-Fi.
| Quote: | | I'm thinking it would be more appropriate to convert sensor ranges in atmosphere by the Space-to-Orbital conversion (i.e. Space Units x 20 = kilometers)... |
In that case the sensors will detect far outside the range where the weapons can target. See previous comment on the probe droid, also based on the radio play the Rebels on Hoth don't seem to detect the advancing Imperials for some time which doesn't seem consistent with better than earth-radar technology.
| Quote: | | ...After all, we have airborne radar systems today with effective ranges of several hundred kilometers or more, so I don't see why sensor systems from a far more advanced technology would have drastically reduced range. |
The fallacy is assuming just because they have starships and lightsabers that all their technology is equal or superior to our own. Based on the films, ships engage at very close ranges. It is easier, I think, to rationalize this if those are the engagement ranges that make sense based on their sensor technology and weapons rather than assuming they detect things very far away and just choose to wait to eyeball the target before opening fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right, but all that point blank fighting and such is cinematic, not realistic. I'm sure they can engage at longer ranges, but it just isn't as exciting to watch as a close-range dogfight.
Look at the dogfighting in Top Gun. Maverick is flying an F-14 with a radar range of 300 miles, yet he gets right on the tail of the Migs to fight them. Why didn't he engage from 300 miles? It's not fun to watch.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | It is axiomatic that a significant change in sensor technology changes warfare. For example, balloons had some effect on warfare in the Civil War. Radar had a huge effect on warfare in WWII. We see Star Wars vehicles fighting at nearly point blank ranges. If they truly had an ability to accurately detect and target hostile vehicles at ranges longer than we see in the films, why don't they do so in the films? |
Maybe their weapons are not effective at the same ranges as their sensors? To extend the WWII analogy, even though the RAF could see the Germans coming from a lot further off, they still had to get within gun range to do anything but watch.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Maybe their weapons are not effective at the same ranges as their sensors? To extend the WWII analogy, even though the RAF could see the Germans coming from a lot further off, they still had to get within gun range to do anything but watch. |
That is certainly a point. But SW isn't limited to .50 cal MGs and 20mm cannon. If you drastically increase the sensor ranges, you then really need to explain (especially in a vacuum) why the weapons can't hit what you can clearly see.
And of course jmanski is right that the reason combat is shown at close range in all Sci-Fi movies and TV shows is because you need to fit the attacking and defending ships in the same camera shot at a range where the audience can tell which ship is which which necessitates the ranges be artificially close. And of course if you can't see that - "It's not fun to watch."  When running or playing space opera, I'm looking for the same kind of thrill the audience gets watching Star Wars and hence I want combat to simulate that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | That is certainly a point. But SW isn't limited to .50 cal MGs and 20mm cannon. If you drastically increase the sensor ranges, you then really need to explain (especially in a vacuum) why the weapons can't hit what you can clearly see. |
Using My theory of how blasters work, I explain it by saying that at longer ranges, too much coherent light energy is able to escape the plasma bolt, rendering it ineffective. Also, I don't accept the idea of light speed blaster bolts, so you need to be close enough to actually hit those zippy little fighters.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:52 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Ok, why not? |
Answer 1: Sensors should not comparable because starfighters move much faster than ground vehicles so they need better sensors. I don't have a problem with other vehicles having sensors. In fact I always assumed that they did. Just most ground vehicles don't have sensors that are as good as the sensors on a space ship. |
I will concede that point. However, as Gamer mentioned, even Luke's piddly old Tatooine landspeeder had scanners that picked up R2D2 from a distance. A vehicle of that size certainly does not need the full range of sensors available to a starfighter or a capital ship, but it is in-universe fact that that vehicle did, in fact, have at least a rudimentary scanner system installed.
| Quote: | | Answer 2: Just because an F-22 (analogous to a starfighter) needs and has powerful sensors doesn't mean or require a police car (analogous to a ground vehicle) to have the same powerful sensors. |
The counter-point is that military vehicles like AT-ATs or AT-STs, or the Alliance Snowspeeders (which are clearly shown to have sensors in ESB) may also need / have powerful sensors. Even modern police vehicles have spotlights and cameras complete with audio pickups. The newest versions are even equipped with visual scanners that read license plates looking for vehicles flagged in their system. These are all basic sensors in their own way. Military ground or atmospheric vehicles have night vision, infrared sights, radar transceivers, etc. There is no reason that ground / atmosphere vehicles in the SWU should not be equipped with at least some kind of sensor system that is appropriate for their mission.
| Quote: | | It is axiomatic that a significant change in sensor technology changes warfare. For example, balloons had some effect on warfare in the Civil War. Radar had a huge effect on warfare in WWII. We see Star Wars vehicles fighting at nearly point blank ranges. If they truly had an ability to accurately detect and target hostile vehicles at ranges longer than we see in the films, why don't they do so in the films? |
Your arguing a null point. I'm not advocating the enhancement of sensor ranges in general, which is the in-game range system you are defending. I'm arguing two points: 1) that sensors should not be exclusive to space traveling vessels, and 2) that sensor ranges in atmosphere should be more reflective of reality. Space combat itself would remain unchanged, as the higher velocities would counter the sensor's great range. Only atmospheric combat would be affected.
| Quote: | | Why did Han and Chewiee need to get within a stones throw of the probe droid to observe it. If you significantly enhance sensor capability than everyone should use it and thus warfare changes and so do the kinds of adventures PCs can have. What you have is not longer space opera, it's more like hard Sci-Fi. |
I don't need space opera to be so ridiculous that a starfighter, capable of interstellar travel at extremely high velocities is limited to a maximum sensor range of 4-5 kilometers in atmosphere. Changing the sensor ranges does nothing apart from correct another one of WEG's many omissions; it doesn't have to change how we play the game.
It does introduce the possibility of ground clutter: a ship's sensors may be able to see a hundred kilometers in any direction, but that doesn't mean it can see through solid rock. Han and Chewie were obviously not approaching the probe droid on a perfectly flat surface; they had something to use for concealment.
| Quote: | | In that case the sensors will detect far outside the range where the weapons can target. See previous comment on the probe droid, also based on the radio play the Rebels on Hoth don't seem to detect the advancing Imperials for some time which doesn't seem consistent with better than earth-radar technology. |
Radio silence? Curvature of Hoth's surface blocking the AT-AT's from sensor detection? Maybe the energy shield disrupted their sensors. After all, Hoth base did detect a fleet of Star Destroyers coming out of hyperspace in Sector Four.
| Quote: | | The fallacy is assuming just because they have starships and lightsabers that all their technology is equal or superior to our own. |
Actually, the fact that they are capable of interstellar travel practically requires that they have superior sensors. Ships need to be able to detect potential obstacles in their path, even if those obstacles are thousands of kilometers distant. IMO, it's even more ridiculous to assume that their technology isn't superior to ours in all respects.
| Quote: | | Based on the films, ships engage at very close ranges. It is easier, I think, to rationalize this if those are the engagement ranges that make sense based on their sensor technology and weapons rather than assuming they detect things very far away and just choose to wait to eyeball the target before opening fire. |
The problem for me is that rationalizing it like that requires me to accept that a highly advanced starship (compared to us), capable of interstellar travel at extreme velocities and equipped with a whole host high-tech equipment (most of which is purely theoretical by our standards) has a sensor system that is comparable in range to WW2-era airborne radar technology. I think it's ridiculous to assume that, of all the technological advances that differentiate between a WW2-era night fighter and an X-Wing that no one came up with better, more sensitive sensor systems.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | Look at the dogfighting in Top Gun. Maverick is flying an F-14 with a radar range of 300 miles, yet he gets right on the tail of the Migs to fight them. Why didn't he engage from 300 miles? It's not fun to watch. |
Exactly. F-14s equipped with Phoenix missiles can hit targets in excess of 100 miles away, yet they are still equipped with a 20mm gatling gun to engage targets within a few hundred yards. It doesn't mean that their sensor systems have to be scaled back to reflect the limited range of their weapons.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Using My theory of how blasters work, I explain it by saying that at longer ranges, too much coherent light energy is able to escape the plasma bolt, rendering it ineffective. Also, I don't accept the idea of light speed blaster bolts, so you need to be close enough to actually hit those zippy little fighters. |
That may cover blasters, but why are all the beam weapons sub-light speed and susceptible to the drastic range limitations (even in vacuum)? After all we have lasers now along with our earthly radar. Also, why are SW missile weapons able to make 100G+ turns on a deci-credit but they can't seem to hit at even the ranges that our earthly missile can? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | Using My theory of how blasters work, I explain it by saying that at longer ranges, too much coherent light energy is able to escape the plasma bolt, rendering it ineffective. Also, I don't accept the idea of light speed blaster bolts, so you need to be close enough to actually hit those zippy little fighters. |
That may cover blasters, but why are all the beam weapons sub-light speed and susceptible to the drastic range limitations (even in vacuum)? After all we have lasers now along with our earthly radar. Also, why are SW missile weapons able to make 100G+ turns on a deci-credit but they can't seem to hit at even the ranges that our earthly missile can? |
I make a distinction... Beam weapons travel at light speed, while plasma packet (blaster-type) weapons travel slower. Blasters, disruptors, laser and turbolaser cannons, pulse wave and ion cannons are all plasma packet weapons in my book. Lasers weapons like beam tubes seem to be less powerful and outdated. Tractor beams I have yet to fully understand or explain, but they don't seem to be primary weapons. (Because they're invisible...?) Are there any more beam weapons I'm overlooking?
I'm re-working the rules I use for concussion missiles and proton torpedos right now, because I do think the ranges are busted. They will end up with the theoretically limitless range of any ballistic projectile in a vacuum, but they will have a lot of trouble hitting a ship after they have run out of fuel.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:20 am Post subject: Re: Ground Based Sensors |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I think it's ridiculous to assume that, of all the technological advances that differentiate between a WW2-era night fighter and an X-Wing that no one came up with better, more sensitive sensor systems. |
So you find my points ridiculous. How droll.
What's ridiculous is ships that travel so fast at sublight speed that they can move from ground level to orbit in a few minutes or less dogfighting at distances of 10s or 100s of meters controlled by the reflexes of a human pilot. But that is canon.
What's ridiculous is assuming that space opera = hard science fiction. It's swords in space! And that's canon too.
But the great part about RPGs is that everyone can change his or her game (or not) in whatever ridiculous way he or she wants. Carry on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
