220 replies to this topic

[YueFei]

Roland, on 18 September 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

Ah, but that's all part of the game... Because the trick becomes how do you detect those mechs without them knowing that you've detected them? It's the interplay of being able to flip radars on and off, and work on the edge of detection, that makes the interplay interesting.

Regardless, I expected this to be a contentious issue. Hopefully Amaris will decide to post up some of his thoughts regarding this.

You could also use ECM to create ghost targets to make it look like half a dozen mechs are going thru the cave, when in fact everyone is waiting to push thru the pocket.

[Roland]

VanillaG, on 18 September 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Possible solution would be to have maps modified with a "radar detection mesh" so that in some parts of the maps ranges are modified. So in the case of a cave, you get no detection and in city maps ranges are reduced.

This would give an interesting feature.

Weevil (who generally never posts here) had some suggestions of different radar types, like lidar, seismic, magetic, etc... Where different radar types/modes would allow penetration of different materials, but generally having various different penalties associated with them... like Lidar would have extended ranges along LOS, but would be extremely visible to anyone using thermal imaging.. seismic would only work when stationary, etc.

Amaris had suggested making it more realistic in many ways, potentially having sensors return different "qualities" for contacts. I work with various real world sensor models and this is appealing to me... For instance, you could get contacts through terrain, but likely only get something like a bearing to them... not actually a location. Or maybe a bearing that would only mature into a location after a period of time.

This would allow for sensors to provide SOME information in cases where you don't have LOS, but would certainly not provide you with the full picture.

Another thing too, which I think folks should consider when thinking about all this....

Currently, the radar display we have on our hud is very small.. meaning, it's very zoomed in.

This resulted in a situation where with Seismic, you had contacts all the way out to the edge of the radar display.. but this was only because the display only covered a small region.

With the types of sensor ranges we're talking about here (potentially further than 1000m), that display would be much more zoomed out... so that would definitely affect things significantly. When you're looking at things from that level, things that are within seismic range are already right on top of you.

[Koniving]

Roland, on 17 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

I can agree with much of this.
There are two things I would want to address though.

The first thing:
Zero effect of ECM versus missiles.
(This first one is 100% optional for consistency with all that follows.)

• Given the changes in missiles (which fit the fluff of standard LRM missiles so kudos there), I would consider that if LRMs pass within 180 meters of an enemy ECM field, it could disrupt their lock. A brief interception might just cause them to spread a little bit, a heavy interception (having to travel a full 180 meters through an ECM bubble to reach a target on the other side) might break their tracking altogether.
  
  • This is merely an optional effect for consistency considering that this exact same thing happens to NARC and TAG beams that try to go through ECM bubbles in BT. This is just consistency, but is not part of fluff, rules, etc as ECM does not affect standard LRMs.

And on LRMs with Artemis:

• The fluff of Artemis is that the launcher actually has a beam that with line of sight draws from the launcher to the target, feeds back to itself, and relays that information to the LRMs to further enhance their own on board guidance systems. The result is of course significantly more accurate missiles that are externally guided.

This leads us to ECM versus Artemis.

• In the tabletop rulebooks, Artemis benefits become removed if at any point the missile flight path or the line of sight passes through an ECM bubble, even if only by the edge. This represents the disruption of one of the following:
  
  • Artemis beam is cut off, blocking the advanced target positioning data that the Artemis would communicate.
    
    • This is fixed by removing the ECM bubble from the line of sight of Artemis to the target.
  • Missile flight passes through ECM field, missiles cannot communicate with the Artemis launcher [has no effect on normal LRMs as LRMs are self-contained, but Artemis LRMs lose their accuracy benefits because they cannot communicate back with the launcher).
    
    • This is fixed by the missiles leaving the ECM bubble, but again whether it can communicate directly to the launcher may still rely on whether an ECM bubble is in the way.
  • ECM bubble gets within 180 meters of the launching mech, immediately breaking any communication between the Artemis launcher and the missiles.
    
    • Get away from said ECM mech.
  • It is pretty obvious that that either standard LRMs would need more spread than they currently have, or Artemis would need to be tighter. Considering how tight Artemis really is currently as well as the skill element still required for Artemis's full functionality when compared to the fire and forget nature of standard LRMs by this proposal, I would loosen the standard LRM spread a bit.

With that, apply a similar thing to NARC and TAG.


For my opinion as I'm more of a purist, NARC would only affected while in the ECM field or an ECM field comes between a missile user and the NARC.

Once true "Homing LRM" [TAG-guided] ammo and Arrow IV [TAG-guided] comes, the anti TAG function of ECM will become very appreciated. Until then I would leave TAG alone rather than adding it to the things ECM affects, as TAG's true benefit won't be realized without them.
-------------------
The second thing I would like to address isn't necessarily what I would not do but a contingency.
25% harder to detect ECM mech... I could get behind that.
Now... If we get this, I would start with a standardized active/passive range per mech tonnage for detecting things, and then PGI can fluctuate this to give certain mechs and variants stronger benefits or weaker benefits in accordance to their determined roles.

Though if we do not get such a sensor system, my addressing here is I would go with a target reticule that can be locked on with an "Unknown" mech with a hostile or neutral signature which has no mech chassis or variant information, no weapon display, uncertain distance (optional), no damage status. (The canon values for "Denies targeting data" which is why PGI potentially interpreted in the way they did.) This is either with no feed until X range or a delay to feed before you can get the info.

Either way, it would be my preference to require a higher end stealth system such as Stealth Armor to reduce your detection within standard detection ranges as opposed to ECM by itself doing this (requiring 10 slots [2 for ECM, 8 for Stealth Armor with 2 in each arm, 2 in each leg, 2 in each ST] in order to get 'real difficulty in detecting me').

Edited by Koniving, 18 September 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[TLBFestus]

One thing you might want to address, and forgive me if someone mentioned it somewhere between your OP and mine, is a "location specific" specific one.

You mention, for example, the Tunnel in Forest Colony, but it could be "the garage" in Crimson Straight, the basement in HPG Manifold, the Ice Cave in Frozen City, or the passage on River City;

Quote

What this will enable is that mechs will be able to go passive and choose to rely much more directly upon their line of sight, so the type of gameplay we have currently is still possible. That is, you will still be able to sneak around under cover as we do today. You can go through a tunnel on forest colony or frozen city, and still be relatively undetectable unless someone is sitting right there next to the tunnel.

For immersions sake, if a map has areas like the ones I just listed above, you really should not be able to pick someone up on radar, ie. Forest Colony Tunnel from OUTSIDE of said feature. Obviously Radar could not pass through solid rock to detect a target.

Now once you are inside that feature, it could detect targets. It would still give Seismic a place as a module as well as it could detect movement within those "shielded" areas at the appropriate range.

If you think about it, that's probably why those features are in many of the maps, but they don't seem to function that way currently. Again, I don't know if they can easily program a select area of a map to be impenetrable to radar unless you are in it, but it would increase options for movement and you could still counter it via Seismic, LoS, or entering the area.

Would just be a nice twist on some of the maps. Can you address this?

[DasSibby]

I love this, and everything about it. Especially the LRM fix.

LET IT BEGIN!

[Roland]

In terms of integrating effects on artemis with ecm, I think that stuff can be integrated fine, as it's not directly related to most of the stuff I presented.

One thing though, is that I never really understood the idea of ECM somehow disrupting tag or artemis... If the ECM bubble is near the shooter, then it could potentially disrupt artemis by preventing the shooter from transmitting additional data to the missiles... but for the target?

It's a laser. ECM can't block a laser. It's basically the same kind of thing as modern guidance lasers... there's not really anything to disrupt. It's not like the laser itself is transmitting any kind of information.

A Narc Beacon could be disrupted by ECM, because it's transmitting information.

Also, a lot of this stuff all hinges on the idea I presented that allows LRM's to target mechs based purely on LOS... So, regardless of whether you have a radar lock, you should still be able to lock missiles and fire... because, hell, you can see the freaking mech.

[DocBach]

Koniving, on 18 September 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Though if we do not get such a sensor system, my addressing here is I would go with a target reticule that can be locked on with an "Unknown" mech with a hostile or neutral signature, no weapon display, uncertain distance (optional), no damage status. (The canon values for "Denies targeting data" which is why PGI potentially interpreted in the way they did.) This is either with no feed until X range or a delay to feed before you can get the info.

I really like the denial of range estimation part -- "Hey I got a lock!"

*Fires 1200 missiles not realizing the target is 1500m out*

[Kensaisama]

Roland, on 18 September 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

In terms of integrating effects on artemis with ecm, I think that stuff can be integrated fine, as it's not directly related to most of the stuff I presented.

One thing though, is that I never really understood the idea of ECM somehow disrupting tag or artemis... If the ECM bubble is near the shooter, then it could potentially disrupt artemis by preventing the shooter from transmitting additional data to the missiles... but for the target?

It's a laser. ECM can't block a laser. It's basically the same kind of thing as modern guidance lasers... there's not really anything to disrupt. It's not like the laser itself is transmitting any kind of information.

The equipment that emits the laser (infrared beam) can be disrupted if within the ECM field, outside the field it will have no affect. This is of course taken from the TT rules, TAG is described as a piece of equipment that emits an infrared beam, likewise the artemis fire control system also emits an infrared beam, and per the TT rules both are affected by ECM.

So I agree that it should not block said laser if it is not in the field of disruption from ECM, however If it is within the field, said equipment should not operate properly.

Also how would you address the issue of ECM and no LOS? I read your treatise and it did not appear that you addressed that issue, if you did then my apologies for missing it.

Edited by Kensaisama, 18 September 2014 - 11:49 AM.

[Roland]

TLBFestus, on 18 September 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

One thing you might want to address, and forgive me if someone mentioned it somewhere between your OP and mine, is a "location specific" specific one.

You mention, for example, the Tunnel in Forest Colony, but it could be "the garage" in Crimson Straight, the basement in HPG Manifold, the Ice Cave in Frozen City, or the passage on River City;



For immersions sake, if a map has areas like the ones I just listed above, you really should not be able to pick someone up on radar, ie. Forest Colony Tunnel from OUTSIDE of said feature. Obviously Radar could not pass through solid rock to detect a target.

Now once you are inside that feature, it could detect targets. It would still give Seismic a place as a module as well as it could detect movement within those "shielded" areas at the appropriate range.

If you think about it, that's probably why those features are in many of the maps, but they don't seem to function that way currently. Again, I don't know if they can easily program a select area of a map to be impenetrable to radar unless you are in it, but it would increase options for movement and you could still counter it via Seismic, LoS, or entering the area.

Would just be a nice twist on some of the maps. Can you address this?

Yeah VanillaG presented a workable solution for such things, by introducing some kind of "detection mesh" feature to maps, where certain sections of maps would only feed detections to other entities on that mesh.. so you'd be able to set up sections of the map where you were effectively isolated from other sections.

You could actually do a number of different things with such an implementation, such as creating dead zones where you can't even see friendly mechs, etc.

We used to have matches in MW4 where the radar was turned off.. it tended to lead to some really interesting and crazy fights sometimes, especially when it was night with pea-soup fog.. so you had no radar, and also couldn't see more than maybe 100m in front of your mech. You'd be slowly creeping around, and would literaly run into the enemy force, and then comms would just explode with folks saying "HOLY **** THEY ARE RIGHT HERE".

Kensaisama, on 18 September 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Also how would you address the issue of ECM and no LOS? I read your treatise and it did not appear that you addressed that issue, if you did then my apologies for missing it.

What issue are you talking aobut here? Sorry, I'm not quite clear what the question is.

[Koniving]

DocBach, on 18 September 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

I really like the denial of range estimation part -- "Hey I got a lock!"

*Fires 1200 missiles not realizing the target is 1500m out*

I put optional as that actually was happening with the ghost targeting thing.

The feedback given [paraphrased] from the firing was upon failing the roll was "false target acquired, missile overshot and hit Hex [number]
Check for fire ignition in hex [#] heavy woods. Fire started."

I was using a Centurion AL whose 360 degree radar is more advanced than other Centurion models I have tried (A and AH). It lacks other things in exchange, but that radar comes in handy.

By more advanced I mean that it had twice the range of the other two Centurions I tried on megamek. I really like that because its heat is really unbearable in comparison and its damage output is lower. Now optical recognition and closer range probably would have allowed me better chances of beating the ghost target issue. (Optical recognition or PGI's forward facing 'sensors' which are not necessarily the same as double blind's 'Mech Radar').

What happened was he put the ghost target directly behind of himself and the radar picked up the ghost target but not him (due to being inside woods with a building also blocking LoS. The false signature was planted between hexes of woods)

So what I had pictured was that I had been presented with multiple targets in front of me but none in line of sight, all of which were of the same mech, and from there I simply translated that into regular jamming with a fluctuating range meter. It won't have any real effect sadly. But if we had manual or delayed convergence that in itself would be huge much like you imagined.

[DocBach]

What rule set let him place false signatures? The original ghost target rules required a piloting skill roll and the margin of success was the modifier added to the gunner skill roll against targets in a ghost target ECM field. It was really overly complicated and in the errata for Tac Ops they came out and just gave it a +1 modifier to hit, but in neither version I've seen had any ability to actually generate false radar locations for tricking spotting rolls.

Edited by DocBach, 18 September 2014 - 11:59 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Roland, on 18 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

This would give an interesting feature.

Weevil (who generally never posts here) had some suggestions of different radar types, like lidar, seismic, magetic, etc... Where different radar types/modes would allow penetration of different materials, but generally having various different penalties associated with them... like Lidar would have extended ranges along LOS, but would be extremely visible to anyone using thermal imaging.. seismic would only work when stationary, etc.

Amaris had suggested making it more realistic in many ways, potentially having sensors return different "qualities" for contacts. I work with various real world sensor models and this is appealing to me... For instance, you could get contacts through terrain, but likely only get something like a bearing to them... not actually a location. Or maybe a bearing that would only mature into a location after a period of time.

This would allow for sensors to provide SOME information in cases where you don't have LOS, but would certainly not provide you with the full picture.

Another thing too, which I think folks should consider when thinking about all this....

Currently, the radar display we have on our hud is very small.. meaning, it's very zoomed in.

This resulted in a situation where with Seismic, you had contacts all the way out to the edge of the radar display.. but this was only because the display only covered a small region.

With the types of sensor ranges we're talking about here (potentially further than 1000m), that display would be much more zoomed out... so that would definitely affect things significantly. When you're looking at things from that level, things that are within seismic range are already right on top of you.

All of these ideas are highly interesting, and I'd love to have a lot more depth to the quality and type of sensor modes. I know why thermal was changed, but I dearly miss reasons to flip between views while running around. Some of the most fun features of this game have gone away because they were broken (collisions) and changed to dramatically that they're only useful in very very specific situations (thermal/night vision).

Have you thought about the interaction between scouts and the relay of information at all? Should mechs have to maintain LOS OR a chain of sensor bubbles to relay information to each other? I would like that as well.

[Praehotec8]

Very interesting ideas. I wish that we could try out some of the ideas presented on these forums to see which ones work well, and which don't. Unfortunately, it feels like there would be too much involved in changing what we currently have so it seems unlikely to ever come to pass.

I especially wish we could try the direct LOS LRM fire.

[Roland]

Prezimonto, on 18 September 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Have you thought about the interaction between scouts and the relay of information at all? Should mechs have to maintain LOS OR a chain of sensor bubbles to relay information to each other? I would like that as well.

Chromehounds had such a mechanic, and it was definitely interesting.

Generally though, I would tend to relay MORE information, not less...

For instance, way back in the day when they first started talking about "role warfare" the idea of a module that allowed a mech to relay multiple targets to his team was presented.

I'd really rather have something like that, where everyone could see who everyone can see, rather than just the one target they happen to have selected. This is one of the things that makes not having voice comms a major issue for pugs, because it's much harder to fully relay exactly how many contacts you see when you're scouting and you encounter a group. The only thing many folks can do in that case is just cycle the targets really fast to try and indicate many contacts.

I'd rather the system just relayed all of the contacts you saw.

[TLBFestus]

OK....ECM is done.

What next?

[Koniving]

Roland, on 18 September 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

In terms of integrating effects on artemis with ecm, I think that stuff can be integrated fine, as it's not directly related to most of the stuff I presented.

One thing though, is that I never really understood the idea of ECM somehow disrupting tag or artemis... If the ECM bubble is near the shooter, then it could potentially disrupt artemis by preventing the shooter from transmitting additional data to the missiles... but for the target?

It's a laser. ECM can't block a laser. It's basically the same kind of thing as modern guidance lasers... there's not really anything to disrupt. It's not like the laser itself is transmitting any kind of information.

A Narc Beacon could be disrupted by ECM, because it's transmitting information.

Also, a lot of this stuff all hinges on the idea I presented that allows LRM's to target mechs based purely on LOS... So, regardless of whether you have a radar lock, you should still be able to lock missiles and fire... because, hell, you can see the freaking mech.

Page 196 of the 3050 Technical Readout (Revised):

Quote

"The Guardian emits a broad-band signal that interferes with all sonar, radar, UV, IR, and magscan sensors, thus protecting all units in a radius of up to 180 meters by projecting a "cloak" to its enemies. Enemy long-range sensors can find vehicles and 'Mechs within the curtain, but the Guardian obscures the reading and prevents identification[/color]. By the time the enemy enters visual range, sensors can sometimes override the jamming, but by this time most pilots rely on their own eyes to track the opposition."
Technical Readout: 3050 Revised, pg 196

TAG and Artemis fall under Infrared sensors.

Now you might be thinking: "Why doesn't it affect normal lasers?"
It stops intelligible information from being passed through those lasers. It doesn't stop heat from passing through (the core source of laser damage is heat through radiation).

Now, when you take an ARROW IV or the true accuracy of "Homing LRMs" (aka Tag compatible LRMs), well you'd basically be screaming "O.P." compared to normal LRMs.

Tag would effectively need to increase current LRM accuracy by about 75 to 80% to get the ratio of effect of Homing LRMs to standard ones, as well as require either less lock on time or... if you go by what Stackpole writes (summarized) : No lock on necessary, just fire in their general direction and the missile takes over, seeking out the tag signal for as long as it lasts.

Then ARROW IV: where a single missile does 20 damage if directly hitting you. These are fired and forgotten, guided entirely by the TAG beam that they are locked onto.

That's where TAG really shines. Granted that's 5 missiles per ton of ammo, but... wait til one of those hits you.
WHAM!

Edit: (Cleaned up colors.)
------------
As someone said below (which is exactly what I was getting at with my mentions about ECM, flight paths and TAG to the bubble), Artemis-enhanced missiles, "Homing LRMs" (aka TAG-enhanced LRMs), NARC-enabled LRMs... and all SRM equivalents (SRMs, too, are guided missiles that track their targets. Interestingly enough in one of Stackpole's books, SRMs without the external influence of Artemis can't fly close to each other without turning against one another) are all externally influenced by the mech.

Standard LRMs, standard SRMs, etc. are self-contained to work against modern influences such as electronic warfare and ECM. Regular LRMs are essentially fire and forget.

The following is purely stipulation from the Battletech novels and not the rules:
---------
The most consistent description is that they are actually fired in the general area of a gridsquare (Hex) and from there their own tracking takes over.

The second most consistent is lock ons for the best accuracy, while using the previously mentioned method as a 'dumbfired' secondary that still has good accuracy even on moving targets when either lockon cannot be achieved (outside of the 630 meter native LRM range but within the maximum possible LRM range) or as a method for handling indirect fire without the benefits of a C3 computer network.

Edited by Koniving, 18 September 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[Chronojam]

Roland, on 18 September 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

It's a laser. ECM can't block a laser. It's basically the same kind of thing as modern guidance lasers... there's not really anything to disrupt. It's not like the laser itself is transmitting any kind of information.

There's actually a good reason for this! While the mech (well, its fire control system) relies on laser-based target positioning to do its guidance, the missiles themselves are not using a passive seeker to follow a laser/IR strobe. The missiles actually rely on guidance/course-correction broadcasts that are done over microwave channels, which are thus vulnerable to jamming when the missiles enter an area that can disrupt that communication pathway.

[Koniving]

DocBach, on 18 September 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

What rule set let him place false signatures? The original ghost target rules required a piloting skill roll and the margin of success was the modifier added to the gunner skill roll against targets in a ghost target ECM field. It was really overly complicated and in the errata for Tac Ops they came out and just gave it a +1 modifier to hit, but in neither version I've seen had any ability to actually generate false radar locations for tricking spotting rolls.

Not actually a rule. (He actually was where I said the ghost target was, but how many people are gonna understand '+1 modifier'. It's much easier to understand "He looked like he was here but he was actually there and projecting himself as here.") It's just a flavor supposition for sparking the imagination as to how it 'might' work if you were to picture it as a real time thing.

Much like ejecting while prone and unconscious into thick woods just says you failed and magically died with the pod destroyed when you fail the roll. But filling in "the ejection pod slammed into some trees and the pilot died inside" not only fits but makes it a lot easier to understand or imagine what happened.

[Iron Riding Cowboy]

Right now the server is telling the client where all the mechs are all the time sooo unless the server keeps from telling your client where the enemy is until they are with in sensor range this will make a known hack a very big problem. 3D radar hack. But with this the sensor targeting well end up working like WoT where the tanks / mechs are invisible until spotted. Because your client do not know where the enemy is tell the server tells your client where they are.



do not get me wrong. I love your idea but if we do not thank about hacks this will become a huge problem. WoT do not have this because of what I have mentioned.

[DocBach]

Koniving, on 18 September 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

Not actually a rule. (He actually was where I said the ghost target was, but how many people are gonna understand '+1 modifier'. It's much easier to understand "He looked like he was here but he was actually there and projecting himself as here.") It's just a flavor supposition for sparking the imagination as to how it 'might' work if you were to picture it as a real time thing.

Much like ejecting while prone and unconscious into thick woods just says you failed and magically died with the pod destroyed when you fail the roll. But filling in "the ejection pod slammed into some trees and the pilot died inside" not only fits but makes it a lot easier to understand or imagine what happened.

Gotcha - translating dice rolls into real life. I still really like the idea of targets who are protected by ECM but targeted not having a range indicator, goes with the following line from pg 224 of Tac Ops;

Quote

Just as special sensors can make spotting enemy units easier,
special ECM and stealth systems can make units harder to detect.
As a general rule, ECM/stealth systems mask a unit’s nature and
precise location from enemy sensors, but the systems’ powerful
jamming devices make it clear to the enemy that something is
out there.

No target information, not even range -- just a box that you can see as long as you either have direct LOS or a team mate does and isn't inside of ECM.