78 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Strum Wealh, on 28 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Though, that should also have to be compatible with Total Warfare's statement about how ECM "affects any enemy unit in this area or any enemy LOS traced through it".

It also has to account for how, as stated above, "stealth systems only affect the target unit and do not have a radius of effect, and so are only taken into consideration for the unit mounting that equipment"... especially since two of those stealth systems with no radius of effect [NullSig and VoidSig] produce even greater modifiers than Guardian (+6 and +7 respectively, versus Guardian's +5) - powerful enough that TacOps itself states, "only a Bloodhound Active Probe [a more powerful off-shoot of Beagle, analogous to how Angel is a more powerful off-shoot of Guardian] can penetrate the Null-Signature System’s masking" (pg. 336) and "only a Bloodhound probe can penetrate the Void-Signature System’s masking effect. The Watchdog system, Beagle Active Probe and their Clan equivalents may not detect a hidden unit using a Void-Signature System" (pg. 349).

That NullSig and VoidSig can be so effective at avoiding detection while having no effect radius would seem to necessarily imply that the spotter's line-of-sight/line-of-fire is considered "part of" said spotter (as the LOS/LOF would necessarily extend from the spotting unit to within "zero hexes" of the stealthed unit), and is thus subject to those systems' effects.
This is also in-line with the examples of "Hex C vs Hex D" and "Hex C vs Hex E" (none of which lie within the ECM radius generated by the 'Mech in Hex A) in Total Warfare (page 134):

• "A shot from Hex C to Hex D would also be affected because LOS passes through the radius."
  
• "A shot from Hex C to Hex E would not be affected because LOS does not pass through the radius."

So, it would seem that if any part of the spotter (including its LOS/LOF) is "in the normal operating radius of the ECM/stealth system", it would be affected by the ECM Suite in question, while the spotter is unaffected if it (including its LOS/LOF) has absolutely no contact with the ECM bubble.

The reason Null Sig and Void Sig are so effective at defeating radar is they are in fact stealth signature systems, not ECM systems. They don't have a field because they don't project a bubble. The word radius in describing ECM refers to a circle, as well as how ECM function was described in the technical readouts and tech manuals, leads me to believe that you need to be in the actual jamming radius for it to overpower 'Mechs sensors. The field will stop Narc Beacons from transmitting through the field, stop the transmission of target information for Artemis, and stop the sharing of information through the field, but it doesn't appear stop all sensor information for a spotting unit unless the spotting unit is directly being interfered by the ECM projection.

Edited by DocBach, 28 January 2013 - 03:40 PM.

[Theobald Hauser]

There is something very strange in what you're saying, both technically and gameplay-wise.

What's the point of an ECM that has a range of 180m and has you to be 180m or less than the sensor ?!
It's literaly of no use, people can already throw stones at you !
From what I understand, ECM jamms signals around you in a 180m radius, it doesn't scramble the signal generator. It's not even an ECM device if it does the second.
Sensors signals cease to work when in the bubble, but the bubble hasn't to be covering the targeting mech.

[DocBach]

In the board game, ECM is mainly meant to protect against advanced electronics like Beagle and Narc, both of which do little to nothing to really worry about protecting against in MWO. It is also used to hide units outside of LOS in things like heavy woods and whatnot, and adds additional multipliers against detection so the units can initiate ambushes.

Edited by DocBach, 28 January 2013 - 03:50 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Amarius, on 28 January 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

You're saying that in TT and potentialy in MWO ECM's use is to make mech stealthed under 180m ?
You need to make spotting checks for huge war machines right in front of you ?

The thing to keep in mind is that 'Mechs actually use several types of sensor:

• Radar/"sensor" (reflection of radio waves)
  
• Infrared (heat/thermal sensing)
  
• MagScan (that is, magnetic anomaly detector)
  
• Seismic (senses vibration)

And all of that is in addition to "using the good 'ole Mark 0 Model 1" (that is, visual spotting).

What we've been discussing thus far is, technically, ECM and its effects on radar, specifically.
Notice the bottom of the ECM/Stealth Modifier table, where all of the stealth systems list "n/a" (and no modifier) against "Seismic/IR/MagScan".

From TacOps, page 222:
"Remember that a spotting unit may use only one type of sensor per turn, which is declared to the gamemaster at the start of the turn (see p. Initiative Phase, p. 221)."
Think of it as being like a multi-function display, where each sensor type represents a different "mode" - the MFD can switch which "mode" is active and appears on its screen at the touch of a button, but only one "mode" can be active and shown on the screen at a time.

In Dev Blog 02 and Dev Q&A 03, the Devs described how they would touch on these capabilities (and more) in fleshing-out their plans for MWO's Information Warfare portion of the game.
The Dev quotations, along with my own thoughts, can be read here.

[Theobald Hauser]

I'm comparing every sarna.net references about information or electronic warfare, and I don't think they say that...
The 180m radius is distinctely said to be for allied bonuses, not enemies affected...

And in fact the ECM like presented here is of no use at all in MWO.


EDIT: To Strum Wealh: Even more. A system jamming radar only when under 180m is completely pointless.

Edited by Amarius, 28 January 2013 - 03:58 PM.

[DocBach]

A system that jammed only around 50 meters saved my life when it prevented an IED from detonating next to my truck in Iraq.

The biggest thing ECM is suppose to do is negate the advantages of Narc beacon, C3, and Beagle, all of which should do much more in MWO (well, besides C3 which isn't really but sort of implemented by the way we share information).

Narc should actually allow indirect fire to be launched at the targeted 'Mech, even if there isn't a spotter. Which would equate to something like getting hit by a narc, yet still being targetable (and lockable by LRMs!) by the enemy when you break line of sight. Think of it like the target decay modules they just released, only lasting forever, or until the location the beacon is locked on your 'Mech is destroyed.

A system like that would make you want to go find an ECM umbrella to break that signal!

Beagle is another thing that could use some buffs. First, it has been described as having its own bubble radius of five hexes (150 meters) in which it can detect targets 360 degrees around it, as well as detect any 'Mech not protected by some sort of stealth signature field or ECM. Imagine being able to park at the edge of the caldera and see inside it without actually peeking in?

If you were crossing the caldera, you might want ECM to break Beagle's detection.

When it comes to the electronic warfare part of the game, it isn't just ECM that's broken.

Edited by DocBach, 28 January 2013 - 04:08 PM.

[Theobald Hauser]

It blocks also Artemis. I know what NARC and BAP do and should do.

A thought just happened... Is the ECM as we know it (in MWO) the definitive one or a placeholder for the higher end stealth systems ? A sort of crash test ?
Null Signature and Stealth Armor come to mind. In facts, I'm not sure what else they can do ingame than what ECM already does.

[Strum Wealh]

@DocBach:

I agree with you on Beagle! In fact, I touched on it in another thread (as you know, considering you "liked" the post in question).

Strum Wealh, on 14 January 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Personally, I would like to see BAP's abilities expanded to mirror those described by the advanced rules in Tactical Operations. Namely:

• able to detect hidden units (perhaps implementable as "can maintain targeting through buildings, forests, and weather, but not through hills"; TacOps, pg. 99 and Total Warfare, pgs. 259-260)
  
• targeting bonus (perhaps implementable as a slight (~5%?) boost to missile lock speed and/or a slight (~5%?) boost to convergence; TacOps, pgs. 99)
  
• greater information gathering (perhaps implementable as seeing a HTAL armor display, component health, and remaining ammo counts of a target (rather than the "paper doll" and a simple weapon listing); TacOps, pgs. 99 and 219)
  
• can detect minefields (if Thunder LRMs and/or Thunder Arrow Missiles are ever implemented; TacOps, pgs. 99 and 210)
  
• can see ghost targets (generated by ECM Suites and Command Consoles, if the ability is implemented) for what they are (TacOps, pgs. 99 and 101-102)
  
• can monitor and make use of remote sensors (TacOps, pg. 224)

Your thoughts?

Part of the problem is, a number of those capabilities require certain other things to he implemented in order to become useful - being able to detect mines, see through ghost targets, and draw information from remote sensors means nothing if those things don't exist in order for the interaction to take place.

Another issue is how Beagle is having to compete with the Module system over certain capabilities.
My personal opinion is that Modules like "Target Decay" ("increases the time it takes to lose a target once line of sight is lost to 2.75 seconds; default time is 2 seconds"), "Sensor Range" ("boosts Sensor range by 15%"), and "Target Info" ("decreases the amount of time required for detailed information by 25%") should have been capabilities reserved for (and built-into) Beagle, with the Modules that build on those (like "Advanced Target Decay" and "Advanced Sensor Range") remaining Modules but requiring Beagle to be installed on the 'Mech in order to take effect.

As-is, though, Beagle is currently limited to "25% increased sensor range" (better than the Modules, but IMO the Module should still require Beagle to be installed in order to work), "25% decreased target level acquisition time" ( ), and "allows targeting of unpowered 'Mechs within 120m".
Especially with Guardian having most of its advanced-rules-level capabilities implemented in some form (no ghost targets... yet?), Beagle could (and IMO should) do so much more as well as have a bit of a monopoly over the capabilities it's supposed to embody.

Going back to ECM and stealth, though:
I maintain that there is a hierarchy within the BattleTech rules, wherein advanced rules (TacOps and MaxTech) should not contradict the basic, core rules (TW and CBTMR).
The latter explicitly indicates that units that are technically outside of an ECM field can still be affected by it, provided the unit itself or its LOS/LOF come into contact with it at any point ("Hex C vs Hex D" from TW's example).

In terms of attacking the ECM carrier directly from outside of 180 meters (a hypothetical "Hex C vs Hex A"), the same would hold true - C's LOS/LOF would have th pass through the field of A's ECM in order to get to A itself, and so would be affected by the ECM.

From what I can see in TacOps, the advanced rules don't actually change this - they add other things on top of the basic rules and provide alternatives and workarounds (like the different sensor types and their various effects), but it doesn't necessarily contradict or invalidate what is outlined in the basic rules.

As for the stealth systems, I would argue that TacOps essentially abstracts them into "for all intents and purposes, it acts like an ECM where the effect radius is limited to the Hex in which the unit is presently located".

Also, I'd like to hear what you think of my thoughts on what the Devs' had said about InfoWar.

-----

@Amarius:

The thing to remember about Sarna.net is that it (like all Wikis) is a good "secondary source" ("sources that are one or more steps removed from the original event or document; a secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources") and is useful for providing quick and straightforward references... assuming one can know (or independently verify) that the information contained therein is actually correct.

By contrast, a lot of the current discussion has revolved around the rulebooks themselves as "primary sources" ("documents or physical objects which were written or created during the time under study; these sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event").

With regard to most subjects, the information on Sarna is generally correct... but as a secondary source it summarizes a lot of the information - which can lead to some things being lost in translation (or lost entirely), which may be part of why it might seem that "there is something very strange in what [we're] saying, both technically and gameplay-wise" and why "comparing every sarna.net reference about information or electronic warfare" might not clarify things as much as would be preferred.
And the level of abstraction the TT rules apply to the things they cover, combined with both a knowledge of the fluff and some idea of how analogous real-world items/systems work, can compound the issue...

Also, I doubt that Guardian is a placeholder for anything else, in the way that the CN9-AH was a placeholder for Yen Lo Wang; it may see some changes as the Devs tweak it over time, but it is essentially here to stay (as the things that would replace it - most notably, Angel ECM - aren't supposed to be available for several in-universe years).

[Strum Wealh]

Codejack, on 28 January 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

What are you talking about? It explicitly says that they are laser-guided.

The missiles that are compatible with laser-based guidance systems (e.g. the particular missiles built/modified to be compatible with Artemis and TAG) are "laser guided".
More specifically:

• "The Artemis is a jealous electronics system by nature; its compatibility is solely focused on standard LRM and SRM launch systems and their one-shot varieties, and requires that all such systems on a given chassis be similarly equipped. Even then, the launchers receive the targeting benefits only when using Artemis-equipped munitions. (The launchers may also fire standard missiles, but the Artemis has no impact on accuracy.)" (TechManual, pg. 206)
  
• "When initially fielded, the Alloran In-Line worked in tandem with the AIL Arrow IV homing missile (also developed by Grumman Industries). Lost during the early Succession Wars, this technology was finally recovered in the early 3030s by the Federated Suns, which began fielding the resurrected TAGs to assist in the targeting of laser-guided bombs.
  
• The Capellans’ decade-long alliance with the Free Worlds League in the 3050s later brought about the advent of the semi-guided missiles that also use TAG as an effective target designator, further expanding the utility of this venerable equipment."

The standard/default missiles (that were in use during the period where both Artemis and TAG were LosTech) are usually considered to have been "active radar homing" or "semi-active radar homing" missiles, with a few options for alternate munitions (including Heat-Seeking Warheads (which would behave like their real-world counterparts), Listen-Kill Missiles (relatively simple versions of the real-world anti-radiation missile), and the unguided Dead-Fire Missiles (where the guidance system is removed to accommodate a larger and more-powerful warhead)) determining whether an alternate guidance system is used.

[Theobald Hauser]

Sarna.net is a seconday source, but when quoting the books, there is little room for deviation. I have yet to find false data.

About the other points

- What in your mind would be Null Signature and Stealth Armor perks in MWO ?
Okay, do you see the point now ? What can they do on top of what ECM does in the game at this time ?

- This LOS thing about ECM clearly changes everything. When reading it first time in this thread I couldn't help but think that there was a flaw in the "bubble only" theory. That's how an actual ECM would work. And this is how it works in MWO (but it additionally does the stealth thing that should not be in its perks as is).

[Strum Wealh]

Amarius, on 28 January 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Sarna.net is a seconday source, but when quoting the books, there is little room for deviation. I have yet to find false data.

About the other points

- What in your mind would be Null Signature and Stealth Armor perks in MWO ?
Okay, do you see the point now ? What can they do on top of what ECM does in the game at this time ?

- This LOS thing about ECM clearly changes everything. When reading it first time in this thread I couldn't help but think that there was a flaw in the "bubble only" theory. That's how an actual ECM would work. And this is how it works in MWO (but it additionally does the stealth thing that should not be in its perks as is).

Well, one of the defining characteristics of NullSig and Stealth Armor (the the latter being an attempt to mimic the former) is its heat baffling - both retain heat generated under normal operations (which TT abstracts to having the system itself "generating" heat) for more controlled release into the environment, with the end result of the process being a reduced thermal signature.

From TechManual, page 206:

• "Based on an effort to recover the long-lost Star League-era null signature system, the Capellan Confederation’s stealth armor technology is actually a complex system of heat baffles and layers of radar- and EM-absorbent materials that - while about as bulky as ferro-fibrous armor - provides the same physical protection as standard armor."
  
• "Radical in form and design, stealth armor can undermine even the abilities of active probes, though this system also scrambles its user’s own targeting systems and traps a great deal of waste heat when active."

(It must also be noted that Stealth Armor requires a Guardian ECM Suite to be installed and activated in order to function as such.)

In terms of BattleTech gameplay rules (Total Warfare, pg. 142):

• "A ’Mech with the stealth armor system must also mount an ECM suite. When the stealth armor system is not engaged, the ECM suite functions normally. When the stealth armor system is engaged, the ECM continues to function normally, but the ’Mech suffers effects as if in the radius of an enemy ECM suite. If the ECM suite is destroyed, the stealth armor system cannot function."
  
• "Finally, while engaged, the stealth armor system generates 10 heat points per turn."

Also, the modifiers on TacOps' ECM/Stealth Modifiers Table are different, and the Stealth armor has its own range-based modifiers (to-hit modifiers of +1 at medium range and +2 at long range).

In terms of a MWO implementation for Stealth Armor:

• Stealth armor would provide the same number of armor points per ton and per-point resilience as Standard Armor.
  
• Upon activation (user-toggleable), the ECM Suite would be locked into a "Stealth Mode" (with neither the normal "Disrupt" or "Counter" modes being available).
  
• While active, the Stealth Armor "generates" heat at a rate of 1.00 units per second.
  
• When active, any attempt to target the SA-equipped 'Mech is treated as though the would-be attacker is affected by a disrupt-mode ECM; having an ECM unit in counter-mode has no effect on this situation.
  
• When active, the SA-equipped 'Mech is treated as though it is within the bubble of an enemy ECM in disrupt-mode; allied ECMs in counter-mode have no effect on this situation.
  
• When active, the SA-equipped 'Mech is viewed through IR and thermal sensors as though it is 8 heat units cooler than its current heat bar level (same as NullSig; see page 336 of TacOps) - making it fainter, if not outright "invisible", to thermal vision an more difficult to employ missiles with Heat-Seeking Warheads against.

NullSig would behave similarly, but without the self-jamming effect, without the need to have ECM installed, without the ECM mode-locking (if ECM is installed), and without the armor performance restriction (e.g. one could use FF in conjunction with NullSig).

Granted, this does make NullSig strictly better than Stealth Armor... but, NullSig is never recovered by the IS (hence why Stealth Armor was developed in the first place) and the Clans would never use NullSig (because it doesn't fit into the Clan notions of "honorable" combat, and because it can't be loaded as an OmniPod - for an OmniMech, it has to be built into the 'Mech from the outset or not at all), so NullSig would/should never be implemented in MWO anyway.

[Drebin Cormack]

I'm obviously new to the battletech lore, having only played the pc games since mw2 (was more a fan of earthsiege/starsiege/metaltech at the time, and I couldn't give two cents as to the tt or rpg lore or mechanics).

Personally I think ecm would be better served as a per mech basis. Everyone would have access to ecm, whether it be a module or an internal system like the ams or bap. It would only affect your personal mech then. No more grouping around the ecm atlas every match. Lock times would be longer and detection distance would be about half of standard. Line of sight would trump ecm starting at about 75% range as far as detection is concerned.

[Egomane]

Re-opened after clean-up!

I'm glad the insults at the beginning of this thread have vanished over the last pages.

Edited by Egomane, 29 January 2013 - 03:13 AM.

[Theobald Hauser]

Strum Wealh, on 28 January 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

(a lot of things I already read on sarna and not about MWO implementation but proving that Strum Wealh likes its sources )

In terms of a MWO implementation for Stealth Armor:

• Stealth armor would provide the same number of armor points per ton and per-point resilience as Standard Armor.
  
• Upon activation (user-toggleable), the ECM Suite would be locked into a "Stealth Mode" (with neither the normal "Disrupt" or "Counter" modes being available).
  
• While active, the Stealth Armor "generates" heat at a rate of 1.00 units per second.
  
• When active, any attempt to target the SA-equipped 'Mech is treated as though the would-be attacker is affected by a disrupt-mode ECM; having an ECM unit in counter-mode has no effect on this situation.
  
• When active, the SA-equipped 'Mech is treated as though it is within the bubble of an enemy ECM in disrupt-mode; allied ECMs in counter-mode have no effect on this situation.
  
• When active, the SA-equipped 'Mech is viewed through IR and thermal sensors as though it is 8 heat units cooler than its current heat bar level (same as NullSig; see page 336 of TacOps) - making it fainter, if not outright "invisible", to thermal vision an more difficult to employ missiles with Heat-Seeking Warheads against.

NullSig would behave similarly, but without the self-jamming effect, without the need to have ECM installed, without the ECM mode-locking (if ECM is installed), and without the armor performance restriction (e.g. one could use FF in conjunction with NullSig).

Okay, so, basically, Stealth Armor would give the player mech the stealth that it already has ingame with an ECM, and as you have to carry an ECM to make the Stealth Armor work, also has the "standard" ECM bonuses (countering rolls, BAP/NARC/ARTEMIS invulnerability, ...)

That was my point : ECM as it actually is (and I'm FINE with it, that's not the point) has already the Stealth Armor "game perks" (and not the heat disadvantage).
Stealth Armor in itself wouldn't be a big difference.
So perhaps the ECM as it is now is working like the hitech stealth systems to test their playability ?

Quote

Granted, this does make NullSig strictly better than Stealth Armor... but, NullSig is never recovered by the IS (hence why Stealth Armor was developed in the first place) and the Clans would never use NullSig (because it doesn't fit into the Clan notions of "honorable" combat, and because it can't be loaded as an OmniPod - for an OmniMech, it has to be built into the 'Mech from the outset or not at all), so NullSig would/should never be implemented in MWO anyway.

It's LosTech, and I'm 99% sure LosTech perks will be in the game one way or another.

Maybe even as some kind of "second tier upgrade choice", where you must chose between ClanTech or LosTech as a higher upgrade tier beyond the upgrades we already have (FF/ES/DHS/ARTEMIS)..
Maybe Faction related even. Don't know.
That's why i'm not afraid at all about the Clan mechs coming and the balance involved.

[Strum Wealh]

It's more the other way around...

When the Stealth Armor system is turned off, the armor itself is just Standard Armor (maybe it would be some strange color?) and the ECM works like any and every other ECM (including the different modes of operation, the generation of the bubble, etc).

When the Stealth Armor system is turned on, the 'Mech would lose all of the ECM advantages (including the different modes of operation, the generation of the bubble, etc) and gain the unique aspects of Stealth Armor (the sensor-interference, still no bubble, the reduced heat signature, the increased heat load, the self-jamming, and so on - some of those aspects would happen to be functions analogous to those of ECM, some would be more like the lost NullSig that SA seeks to emulate, and some are unique to SA).

[Theobald Hauser]

What you are saying is that Stealth Armor is worse than ECM as it is now ?

[DocBach]

Strum Wealh, on 28 January 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

@DocBach:

I agree with you on Beagle! In fact, I touched on it in another thread (as you know, considering you "liked" the post in question).

Part of the problem is, a number of those capabilities require certain other things to he implemented in order to become useful - being able to detect mines, see through ghost targets, and draw information from remote sensors means nothing if those things don't exist in order for the interaction to take place.

Another issue is how Beagle is having to compete with the Module system over certain capabilities.
My personal opinion is that Modules like "Target Decay" ("increases the time it takes to lose a target once line of sight is lost to 2.75 seconds; default time is 2 seconds"), "Sensor Range" ("boosts Sensor range by 15%"), and "Target Info" ("decreases the amount of time required for detailed information by 25%") should have been capabilities reserved for (and built-into) Beagle, with the Modules that build on those (like "Advanced Target Decay" and "Advanced Sensor Range") remaining Modules but requiring Beagle to be installed on the 'Mech in order to take effect.

Looks like again, instead of having existing equipment that cost the same as ECM in weight and c-bills the counter comes in the form of 6,000,000 c-bill, 10,000 GXP modules.

[Strum Wealh]

Amarius, on 29 January 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

What you are saying is that Stealth Armor is worse than ECM as it is now ?

Unless one is really worried about their heat signature making them visible to thermal sensors or having the ECM field alert opponents to one's presence, my personal opinion would be that using the ECM Suite by itself would be generally preferable to activating Stealth Armor, but that the latter (like any other piece of equipment) would still have its uses under certain conditions.

DocBach, on 29 January 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Looks like again, instead of having existing equipment that cost the same as ECM in weight and c-bills the counter comes in the form of 6,000,000 c-bill, 10,000 GXP modules.

Well, it is said that every dog has its day, and perhaps the Beagle's time is yet to come?
(And yes, the pun was fully intended. )

[Theobald Hauser]

So, we think alike about SA and ECM.

I do think there still is something not clear about this LOS/LOF-in-ECM-bubble thing in the TT rules, moreover between translations of the said rule... Nevermind.

ECM is perhaps not too strong as is, but in terms of future add-ons to EW, we're busted. ECM already does it all.

As we're already living choices behind the TT, I'd be curious about your opinion on the suggestions in my sig. Privately if you prefer that way.

Edited by Amarius, 29 January 2013 - 06:45 PM.