| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 4:58 pm Post subject: Nape-Of-The Earth / Low-Level Flight |
 |
|
So, I've been putting a lot of work into making rules for starfighter combat, and one of the things that has come up recently (when I posted this stat is low-level flight, where starfighters are running close enough to the ground that they can derive cover (from both weapons and sensors) from the ground itself. There isn't really a rule to simulate this, and I'm not interested in something hugely complicated to do so. The simplest way to do this would be to increase the Difficulty of the terrain in which the starfighter is operating, with a concurrent increase in the difficulty to target it and shoot it down. I have some basic ideas, but I'd like to hear some suggestions for ballpark numbers, as well as discussion of points that haven't occurred to me.
Thoughts?
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In terms of gaining "cover from the ground itself" we are talking about mountains, buildings, giant rocks/plants etc, right? Not just flat ground, right?
I ask because Ive never heard of the idea before, and am nott sure whether there are some special physics involved, etc.
I have heard of flying under the radar, wherein a craft flys so low that it is outside of the ddetection "zone" of the radar.
As for numbers, Id say just make the pilot choose a number (choose an altitude, basically). Add that number to his ppilot diff as well as to the difficulty to hit/detect him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pel
Line Captain
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nap of the Earth or NOE flying makes use of terrain (hills, valleys, rivers, etc.) to avoid enemy sensors by flying along these features rather than over them. It requires exceptional piloting skills, special sensors such as terrain avoidance radar and FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared), and usually hyper-accurate maps of the terrain both for planning the routes and loaded into the craft's navigation computer.
For added difficulty detecting or targeting a ship flying NOE, I'd add half the terrain difficulty, rounding up. That's of course assuming the detection/weapons platform has LOS to the ship.
_________________
Aha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | In terms of gaining "cover from the ground itself" we are talking about mountains, buildings, giant rocks/plants etc, right? Not just flat ground, right?
I ask because Ive never heard of the idea before, and am nott sure whether there are some special physics involved, etc.
I have heard of flying under the radar, wherein a craft flys so low that it is outside of the ddetection "zone" of the radar. |
There are several variations on the theme, including the use of relatively flat ground. In essence, a craft flying low enough to the ground will actually be below the horizon, in essence using the curvature of the planet's surface as cover. This generally works until the craft gets within 20-30 kilometers of a ground radar, at which point the craft literally can't be below the horizon. This is part of why an effort is made to position ground based air search radar on a hill or other elevated point, as it pushes the horizon further out, and thus increasing the range at which incoming attackers must come above the horizon.
In closer, aircraft may use prominent terrain features, including buildings, hills and mountains, but also valleys and such. More sophisticated cover can be predicted electronically, picking out dead zones where sensor interference is naturally generated.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | In terms of gaining "cover from the ground itself" we are talking about mountains, buildings, giant rocks/plants etc, right? Not just flat ground, right?
I ask because Ive never heard of the idea before, and am nott sure whether there are some special physics involved, etc.
I have heard of flying under the radar, wherein a craft flys so low that it is outside of the ddetection "zone" of the radar.
As for numbers, Id say just make the pilot choose a number (choose an altitude, basically). Add that number to his ppilot diff as well as to the difficulty to hit/detect him. |
From speaking to Naval officers who did NOE training, the closer you get down to the ground, the 'difficulty' to keep your plane level and miss all sorts of stuff (power lines, tree tops etc) jumps up. Especially if going at any sort of speed above "Cruise".. SO i would say treat Nape of the Earth piloting as 1 Cat terrain difficulty level higher than normal, if going at Cautious or Cruise speed, Two if going at Full speed, and 3 cats for going All out.
If they Make the roll, Remove 2D from enemy sensor rolls to detect them.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like it. It's simple enough and it fits well with the Terrain Following Sensors I put on the Y-Wing Firelight. I'd probably treat the 2D as a Stealth bonus instead of subtracting it from the opponent's sensor dice, as well as counting it against fire control rolls.
The only things I'd want to add would be some mechanism whereby the pilot can get a better bonus by flying closer to the ground at greater difficulty, as well as some form of bonus cap based on the terrain itself.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
How's about for each +2 he wishes to add to his difficulty to be spotted/targeted by getting CLOSER to the ground, he adds +5 to his piloting roll difficulties..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | How's about for each +2 he wishes to add to his difficulty to be spotted/targeted by getting CLOSER to the ground, he adds +5 to his piloting roll difficulties.. |
That works. I'm also thinking the Stealth bonus should scale up based on the terrain difficulty, so that while a jagged, narrow canyon will be much more difficult to navigate than some gently rolling hills, the canyon will provide a higher stealth bonus, as it provides better cover.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course, you have to balance the dangers.
If the pilot slows down, could he not lower the diff while retaining bonus?
Also, if the risk of crashing is greater than the risk of being shot down, why not just fight through the scene? Better chance of survival.
I can concieve of missions wherein the mission demands stealth before all other priorities but other than that, if a fight is going to happen anyway, it seems less risky to just fight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
True, going slower should make it easier to navigate at those altitudes. BUT going slower would give more chances to be spotted..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if that even matters, though. With the way starships work (repulsorlift tech, rather than jet propulsion), the ship should be able to just stop and hide, no?
Not to mention that fast moving objects create a vacuum in their wake which yanks everything allong behind it that isn't tied down, so they're leaving a longer "trail" the faster they go... right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | In terms of gaining "cover from the ground itself" we are talking about mountains, buildings, giant rocks/plants etc, right? Not just flat ground, right?
I ask because Ive never heard of the idea before, and am nott sure whether there are some special physics involved, etc.
I have heard of flying under the radar, wherein a craft flys so low that it is outside of the ddetection "zone" of the radar. |
There are several variations on the theme, including the use of relatively flat ground. In essence, a craft flying low enough to the ground will actually be below the horizon, in essence using the curvature of the planet's surface as cover. This generally works until the craft gets within 20-30 kilometers of a ground radar, at which point the craft literally can't be below the horizon. This is part of why an effort is made to position ground based air search radar on a hill or other elevated point, as it pushes the horizon further out, and thus increasing the range at which incoming attackers must come above the horizon.
In closer, aircraft may use prominent terrain features, including buildings, hills and mountains, but also valleys and such. More sophisticated cover can be predicted electronically, picking out dead zones where sensor interference is naturally generated. |
Oh, okay I get it. Makes sense. Now, here is one just to nitpick. It'll obviously be dealt with case by case:
The specs for each planet in your campaign will need to include a "horizon" distance based on their size, so that it varies with each planet. Also, the planet's size could then make it more or less desirable from an air defense perspective for the sake of setting up important infrastructures and defending them. Larger planets would have a farther horizon, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | I wonder if that even matters, though. With the way starships work (repulsorlift tech, rather than jet propulsion), the ship should be able to just stop and hide, no?
Not to mention that fast moving objects create a vacuum in their wake which yanks everything allong behind it that isn't tied down, so they're leaving a longer "trail" the faster they go... right? |
Unless a vehicle using repulsors is going at cautious speed, by the rules they can't just stop on a dime. They gotta slow down one speed cat at a time.
BUT otherwise, yes they could stop and hide.
As to the 'wake' that is true as well.. there should be a wake to follow.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I always get a kick out of how far we take the house rules....
On a related note, after reading through this thread, I went on youtibe and ound a bunch of aerial combat instructional videos (old declassified military trainig mostly). It gave some good examples of how to think three dimentionally. If you haven't already done it crmcnEIll, check it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | Unless a vehicle using repulsors is going at cautious speed, by the rules they can't just stop on a dime. They gotta slow down one speed cat at a time.
BUT otherwise, yes they could stop and hide. |
I would compare repulsorlift operation to the Harrier jump-jet. Yes, it can slow to a complete stop, but that does not mean it can do it instantly. Just because repulsorlifts counteract gravity does not mean they neutralize the ship's mass, and inertia will still have an effect.
| Quote: | | As to the 'wake' that is true as well.. there should be a wake to follow. |
I'm not sure why this is necessary; I'm mostly looking at NOE flight from a bombing run perspective, using terrain to avoid fixed defenses like SAMs or flak cannon, as well as ground-based sensors. Being able to follow a trail would be the province of other aircraft, and terrain-based cover would be far less effective against another aircraft.
I do agree that the terrain cover modifier should remain the same no matter what speed the craft is moving, though...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
