95 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

Strum Wealh, on 06 February 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

As to implementation, my opinion would be that the Console's SciSat-derived ECCM should be able to nullify any ECM field that is not supported by another ECM field within 180 meters of the first. However, it two or more enemy ECMs form overlapping bubbles (such that each enemy ECM generator would actually be within the others' bubbles), then the ECM effect should prevail.

As such, the Console (together with the SciSat) would be able to defeat any ECM suite one-on-one, but the opponents would be able to utilize their ECM suites in spite of the Console and its SciSat by remaining clustered together (which limits their mobility and tactical options).

I thank you for the C3 explanation, makes sense.

However on the SciSat ECCM front, all you would do is mandate a minimum of 2 ECM per team. Battlefield-wide anything is bad, especially a hard counter. All you're really telling me there is that whatever C3 stuff is implemented, SciSats as per TT need to not be on the list.

[StalaggtIKE]

Yakumo, on 05 February 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

I agree with spiltting the ECM abilities into module upgrades. The issue I see with that is people will just upgrade to those modules and then we would be back to having the same broken ECM system again.

No, this is incorrect, because...

Quote

both the RVN-3L and AS7-D-DC have 4 slots, meaning they could essential rebuild the current ECM. The good news is it would be watered down a bit. They also would miss out on other popular modules, such as 360 target and sensor range. This proposed changes would make heavily investing into ECM have a bit a trade-off; something it is currently lacking.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 06 February 2013 - 12:35 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Gaan Cathal, on 06 February 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

I thank you for the C3 explanation, makes sense.

However on the SciSat ECCM front, all you would do is mandate a minimum of 2 ECM per team. Battlefield-wide anything is bad, especially a hard counter. All you're really telling me there is that whatever C3 stuff is implemented, SciSats as per TT need to not be on the list.

You're welcome.

Though, SciSats are part of the Command Console's capabilities, rather than C3 (in fact, C3 is a closed network by design; even other C3 systems can't "just join" a network).

On that note, perhaps we might continue/migrate any Command Console discussions to my off-shoot thread, so that Doc's thread might stay more on-topic?

[Solis Obscuri]

Strum Wealh, on 05 February 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Overall, I agree with Doc.

Though, about the only qualm I have is the notion of the other two modes - Ghost Target Generation and ECCM/Counter - as modules rather than as base capabilities.
(Though, I'm also of the opinion that the Command Console should also have the option of map-wide ECCM capability (via the link to a SciSat, as described in TacOps) at install.)

Also, it seems that all of the modules proposed in the opening post are directly related to Guardian's normal/Disrupt mode.

As a modification of Doc's idea, what if Guardian had the three modes - Disrupt, Counter, and Ghost Targeting - as mutually exclusive states that were accessible at install, and each state had a separate set of modules that became active only when the installed ECM suite was switched into the correct mode?

I made a suggestion about splitting the ECM modes up further quite a while ago.
I like your idea for the Command Console, too - could be a very nifty piece of equipment if implemented correctly!

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 06 February 2013 - 06:39 PM.

[Pachar]

Little bump for one of my favorite suggestion to date.

[Adrian Steel]

Bumping this thread.

[Cannibal Cat]

I'd love to see an ECCM module! This is the first post I've read that mentioned it.
I agree with everything you said, save for the "Ghost imaging" part. That I wouldn't implement.

[DocBach]

The Ghost Target module was an effect it had in the expanded rule set. Maybe it could have differing tiers as well, where higher levels generate more targets to go through or whatever.

[DocBach]

http://bg.battletech...ic,27035.0.html

So I got curious and asked the writers of the board game what "in the radius of ECM meant" and the response I got was:

"In order for ECM to have an effect in Doubleblind rules, the affected unit must be within the ECM's bubble. It is not sufficient for an ECM bubble to be in line of sight."

So more or less, ECM shouldn't be a radar jammer unless you are inside the bubble, which would work perfectly with the modules I suggested. And for the last couple posts, he also linked me some more information on Ghost Targets;


Ghost Targets
An ECM suite can be tuned to generate “ghost targets” that may affect the ability of enemy units to properly
target friendly units. The ECM suite loses its normal functions when used in this way. The player must
announce the switch to ghost target generation in the End Phase of any turn, or may set the suite for ghost
target generation at the start of the scenario. In either case, note the change on the record sheet of the unit
in question.
At the start of every Weapon Attack Phase when a unit has an ECM suite tuned to generate ghost targets,
the unit may target either one friendly or one enemy unit within range of its ECM suite (a unit may target
itself). The unit using ghost targets makes a Piloting/Driving Skill Roll with a +3 modifier; no other
modifiers are applied to this roll. If the roll fails, there is no effect. If successful, apply a +1 to-hit modifier to
all ranged attacks made against the target if the target is friendly to the unit using ghost targets, or a +1 tohit modifier to all the target's ranged attacks if the target is an enemy. This modifier lasts until the end of
the phase; to generate it again the next turn requires a new skill roll.
Multiple ECM suites generating ghost targets may affect the same unit, applying a +1 to-hit modifier per
successful roll, to a limit of +3 in friendly ghost target modifiers and +3 in enemy modifiers.
Active Probe: A unit with any type of active probe ignores any ghost target to-hit modifiers, regardless of
the range of their probe, unless the unit with the probe is being jammed or has active stealth armor.

Edited by DocBach, 15 February 2013 - 10:50 PM.

[Hobgoblin 13]

The main problem with ecm in general is that not all mech's have the choice to use them. How many non DCC Atlas do you see in the game? I would use other flavors of mechs if they could use ECM. Nothing but the DCC is over 65 tons and can use ECM.

Because ECM is a critical swing in living longer, no assult can afford to go without. this causes much less veriety than there could be if all could use ECM,

[DocBach]

Hobgoblin 13, on 15 February 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

The main problem with ecm in general is that not all mech's have the choice to use them. How many non DCC Atlas do you see in the game? I would use other flavors of mechs if they could use ECM. Nothing but the DCC is over 65 tons and can use ECM.

Because ECM is a critical swing in living longer, no assult can afford to go without. this causes much less veriety than there could be if all could use ECM,

I don't think the chassis limitation is the problem, I think the fact that you identified that ECM is critical in living longer. In the source material it is a very niche piece of equipment aimed at countering other very niche pieces of equipment; in MWO it is very literally a protective shield for you and all of your team. THAT is the problem with ECM.

[StalaggtIKE]

This was a great idea. It fits right into MWO's environment. It allows the devs to keep their precious frankenstein monster, while enacting a module choice upon the player. I like to think it was at least considered.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 05 April 2013 - 06:37 PM.

[DocBach]

after reading the response, doubtful it was even ever seen

[Greydron]

Great! Awesome proposal!