How to build: Targeting Computer

[gojira]

Hi all,

 

I was working up a few ideas last night for a PC and ran into a snag. I've got a PC with a few powers connected to a "battle computer" he carries. He already has HRRP and OCVs bought through a focus, and I was looking to add a couple more functions to his "battle computer."

 

Here's what I came up with: The computer already has HRRP, why can't it eavesdrop on enemy signals and display their locations?

 

I wrote it out like this:

Electronic Surveillance: Detect Enemies, Radio Sense Group, +3 INT Roll, Discriminatory, Increased Arc 360, Ranged, Sense-based, Targeting Sense, OIF Helmet (-1/2), Electronics Only (-1/2)

 

First it's a Detect. He can detect Enemies. He should probably be able to detect friends too, but lets leave that alone for now. The Detect is based on the Radio Sense group because it picks up the electromagnetic signature of enemy equipment. It's Discriminatory because the battle computer is really smart and can figure out what the heck they are carrying and display information on the HUD appropriately. It's Sense-based because the computer will just pop up an icon on the HUD (HUD is in his helmet, btw) as soon as it can, with no effort on the character's part.

 

Other additions should be obvious. Increased Arc, Ranged, Targeting, etc.

 

I think it came out to 40 Active Points total and 20 Real Points.

 

First, does the build make sense to you? Would you allow it as is?

 

Second, is there a better way? X-Ray vision or N-Ray Vision? I think radio waves should effectively penetrate buildings, foliage, etc. but maybe if I want that effect I should make the build differently. The Radio-sense group is flashed differently from the Vision group, which I thought was a neat side effect.

 

Ok, any other comments welcome also! Thanks!

[mikesama]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

For x/n ray vision just use it as an adder to a sense instead of a separate power.

 

A targeting computer is simple

 

+x OCV ranged (5pts per) OIF -1/2 (battlesuit) only for suit weapon systems -1/4 (or -1/2)

 

For electronic survailence you need to add ranged otherwise you'll only spot guys who ping you with thier radar.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

The Detect is based on the Radio Sense group because it picks up the electromagnetic signature of enemy equipment.

 

I would change it to Detect Electromagnetic signals. That way, you can pick up enemies, friends, and even anomalies. Since it's Discriminatory, it should be able to differentiate bebtween friends and enemies (usually, and especially if they have IFF).

[gojira]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Right, good idea.

 

I'll add that the detect isn't realistic. Most devices don't really radiate enough EMF to pick up reliably from a distance. I think that's why I built it originally as detect enemies.

 

I guess that would be "Life Energy," same cost as the Dectect Enemies, and maybe a +5 add for an additional class of stuff (Electronic Machines).

 

 

I should add that I'm trying to build this using 100% of the rules in Sidekick, no extra rules from 5th ed. r. I don't see any adders for X-Ray Vision to make it Flash different or based on HRRP in Sidekick.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Who cares if it's realistic? Just say the sensors are very well designed.

 

Since you seem to be detecting machines, I would go with Detect: "Whatever It is They Use for a Battery" Emissions instead of "Life Energy."

 

Just thought it would look nicer on the sheet, that's all.

[SteveZilla]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

I would change it to Detect Electromagnetic signals. That way' date=' you can pick up enemies, friends, and even anomalies. Since it's Discriminatory, it should be able to differentiate between friends and enemies (usually, and especially if they have IFF).[/quote']

 

What would a character (not the one with this sense -- some other one) need to have to "have IFF"?

 

How does such a sense determine intent? That's what it's doing as soon as it labels an unknown as either friendly or hostile. How does it tell that by Electromagnetic Signals?

[SteveZilla]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Also, is this an Active or Passive sense? IIRC, there is no change in cost, but they each have ramifications. And all senses must be defined as one or the other.

[gojira]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Who cares if it's realistic? Just say the sensors are very well designed.

 

That's pretty much my view point. I just like to point out when I'm asking for realistic and when I'm not.

 

Since you seem to be detecting machines, I would go with Detect: "Whatever It is They Use for a Battery" Emissions instead of "Life Energy."

 

"Life Energy" is one of the options for the 10 point (base) detect, a "very common class of things," iirc. By "Life Energy," I just mean people.

 

How does such a sense determine intent? That's what it's doing as soon as it labels an unknown as either friendly or hostile. How does it tell that by Electromagnetic Signals?

 

Well, it really doesn't. You raise a good point. I was kind of envisioning this as a very wide form of vision, but only to see communicators and other electronic devices. (I started with communicators then revamped it up to "any electronics.") It doesn't determine intent any more than your eye can.

 

What it can do is determine toughness, similar to how you could look at someone and think "Hmm, this guy might be trouble." That's the Discriminatory part. And from that it can determine a probable threat, but it can't determine intent.

 

Also' date=' is this an Active or Passive sense? IIRC, there is no change in cost, but they each have ramifications. And all senses must be defined as one or the other.[/quote']

 

Good point, although I didn't see this mentioned in Sidekick. It's actually an active sense--it generates radio waves of various lengths and senses the returning waves then it analyzes them. That's how it can detect radios that aren't being used--it forces them to receive a signal. It can analyze other devices too based on their response, too (all devices have *some* kind of response to radio and other waves).

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

What would a character (not the one with this sense -- some other one) need to have to "have IFF"?

 

How does such a sense determine intent? That's what it's doing as soon as it labels an unknown as either friendly or hostile. How does it tell that by Electromagnetic Signals?

 

 

Identity Friend or Foe signals are pretty common... because otherwise, you are mysterious blip on the radar that is likely to get blown away.

 

Without IFF, the Discriminatory could be used to justify it being able to differentiate between different signatures. Force X uses fighters with this common energy signature (whether it be because of its engine, its design, shielding, or some combination, not to mention whether or not this thing might even be glancing at their communications signals), while Team Y uses fighters with THIS common enemy signature (and since our guy is on Team Y, he can typically assume which pilots will be his friends and which won't).

 

WITH IFF, you might allow the computer to inform the pilot that althought the fighters register as Team Y, the Discrimnatory and +3 INT tell it that they are flying in manner that is rather suspicious and on a course that will take them unnecessarily close to the shuttle full of diplomats.

[SteveZilla]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Identity Friend or Foe signals are pretty common... because otherwise' date=' you are mysterious blip on the radar that is likely to get blown away.[/quote']

 

Well, I would definitely hope that the radar operator has more training than to shoot before confirming a target's identity with some other method. But that is how "realistic" radar works. But in Hero System, one can just purchase Discriminatory on their Radar and be able to determine identity as easily as regular Sight. In which case there'd be no need for each combatant to carry an IFF transmitter.

 

Without IFF' date=' the Discriminatory could be used to justify it being able to differentiate between different signatures. Force X uses fighters with this common energy signature (whether it be because of its engine, its design, shielding, or some combination, not to mention whether or not this thing might even be glancing at their communications signals), while Team Y uses fighters with THIS common enemy signature (and since our guy is on Team Y, he can typically assume which pilots will be his friends and which won't).[/quote']

 

A "Shirts vs. Skins" explanation? That would work if there are only going to be two differing forces, and each force is pretty uniform within itself. I wouldn't depend upon it in a super-heroic game. With the exception of agents, it's pretty much one character's gadgets are unique to that character.

 

I would see an Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (real-world) as being simply the F/X for Discriminatory Radar. In Hero System terms, it can distinguish between targets as well as regular Sight (IMO).

 

WITH IFF' date=' you might allow the computer to inform the pilot that although the fighters register as Team Y, the Discriminatory and +3 INT tell it that they are flying in manner that is rather suspicious and on a course that will take them unnecessarily close to the shuttle full of diplomats.[/quote']

 

IFF is, at it's simplest, just a transmission that says "I'm on Red Team" or "I'm on Blue Team". That's why it's IFF -- Identify Friend or Foe. A similar system is on use on most civilian aircraft -- the Transponder. It is set to "squawk" a certain numeric code specified by the Air Traffic Controller, and can also relay data like altitude, heading, and airspeed.

 

Nothing solely in an IFF transmitter announces anything about flightpath history/projection or it's location/heading relative to other objects. Those are outside of the IFF transmitter's domain.

[Dust Raven]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

I'd probably just do this simply with a Detect EMS (electromagnetic signal), Ranged, Sense, Discriminatory, Targeting with the necessary Focus Limitation. This does not have any IFF associated with it, but it's implied with the Discriminatory. There's no actual signal that says who's on which side of a conflict, the computer just figures it out.

 

If you'd like a more complex version, or the GM says that Discriminatory can't sub for an IFF, buy an accompanying Computer (or add to an existing Computer) the following: Program (identify friend and foe), KS: Friendly Signals. Optionally, you can toss in KS Electromagnetic Signals.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Well, I would definitely hope that the radar operator has more training than to shoot before confirming a target's identity with some other method. But that is how "realistic" radar works. But in Hero System, one can just purchase Discriminatory on their Radar and be able to determine identity as easily as regular Sight. In which case there'd be no need for each combatant to carry an IFF transmitter.

 

 

 

A "Shirts vs. Skins" explanation? That would work if there are only going to be two differing forces, and each force is pretty uniform within itself. I wouldn't depend upon it in a super-heroic game. With the exception of agents, it's pretty much one character's gadgets are unique to that character.

 

I would see an Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (real-world) as being simply the F/X for Discriminatory Radar. In Hero System terms, it can distinguish between targets as well as regular Sight (IMO).

 

 

 

IFF is, at it's simplest, just a transmission that says "I'm on Red Team" or "I'm on Blue Team". That's why it's IFF -- Identify Friend or Foe. A similar system is on use on most civilian aircraft -- the Transponder. It is set to "squawk" a certain numeric code specified by the Air Traffic Controller, and can also relay data like altitude, heading, and airspeed.

 

Nothing solely in an IFF transmitter announces anything about flightpath history/projection or it's location/heading relative to other objects. Those are outside of the IFF transmitter's domain.

 

As would I, but in a tense combat situation, I wouldn't be suprised if "mystery tangos" were vaporized and maybe identified later. Also, I was viewing IFF as more of a SFX explanation of Discriminatory. However, if you don't like it, I am genuinely interested in what you would put forth as an alternative SFX for Discriminatory in this situation. I can't really think of one, except perhaps an EXTREMELY detailed radar report back on the profiles and makeup of individuals ships (to the point it begins to break my suspension of disbelief)

 

True, shirts vs. skins works better for Star Hero. I forgot we are dealing with a Champs game.

 

This sort of addressed my question of an alternative SFX, but I'm afraid I don't fully understand. Can you elaborate?

 

Of course that's all IFF does. I was coupling the information from the IFF with the computer analyzing the data from the radar readouts. Basically, the computer reads the IFF, looks at the radar readings, and decides whether or not the behavior of the ship in question adds up.

[SteveZilla]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

As would I' date=' but in a tense combat situation, I wouldn't be surprised if "mystery tangos" were vaporized and maybe identified later.[/quote']

 

That rings a bell. "Oops. Sorry about shooting down that jumbo jet full of civilians. Here's some money."

 

Also' date=' I was viewing IFF as more of a SFX explanation of Discriminatory. However, if you don't like it, I am genuinely interested in what you would put forth as an alternative SFX for Discriminatory in this situation.[/quote']

 

The thing is, IFF systems in the real world *depend* upon each unit having an IFF transmitter. Normally, they are encrypted so that only those on the same side receive the transmissions. But it's *possible* to break this encryption and be able to receive both your team's IFF and the enemy's IFF (it's happened in the Vietnam war). But what about the arrival of a unit that is not broadcasting, or is broadcasting a completely different signal than all others (presuming you can receive it at all)? Is it a Foe or a Friend? That's unknowable until it takes a hostile action against someone.

 

I can't really think of one, except perhaps an EXTREMELY detailed radar report back on the profiles and makeup of individuals ships (to the point it begins to break my suspension of disbelief)

 

True, shirts vs. skins works better for Star Hero. I forgot we are dealing with a Champs game.

 

This sort of addressed my question of an alternative SFX, but I'm afraid I don't fully understand. Can you elaborate?

 

I'll try. But first I want to ask a series of questions that will hopefully tell me more about what exactly is being attempted.

 

1. What specifically does this sense sense?

 

2. How does it sense it?

 

3. What sense group does it fall into?

 

4. What can interfere with this sense?

[Checkmate]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

That rings a bell. "Oops. Sorry about shooting down that jumbo jet full of civilians. Here's some money."

Except, that it was "Okay no IFF, and they've ignored our 100+ calls, what do we do?"

[SteveZilla]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Thus the need for visual (or some other) confirmation before shooting a slow moving target.

 

I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest about the downing of that airliner, but I thought it illustrated my point (the need for identity confirmation before shooting) fairly well. I'd like to focus on the Detect/Sense that is the subject of this thread.

[Checkmate]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Okay if you say so, but I'll bet the sailors on the USS COLE got a pretty good visual of the boat that killed them before they ever fired a round.

[SteveZilla]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

http://www.history.com/exhibits/military_blunders/mb_iasd.html#detail

 

From http://www.answers.com/topic/uss-cole-bombing

 

"The destroyer's rules of engagement, as approved by the Pentagon, kept its guards from firing upon the small boat loaded with explosives as it neared them without first obtaining permission from the Cole's captain or another officer."

[Checkmate]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

http://www.history.com/exhibits/military_blunders/mb_iasd.html#detail

 

From http://www.answers.com/topic/uss-cole-bombing

 

"The destroyer's rules of engagement, as approved by the Pentagon, kept its guards from firing upon the small boat loaded with explosives as it neared them without first obtaining permission from the Cole's captain or another officer."

Thank you. I think you've adequately proven my point that waiting for an absolute conformation ISN'T a good idea.

[Dust Raven]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Thank you. I think you've adequately proven my point that waiting for an absolute conformation ISN'T a good idea.

 

Actually, it proves that waiting for the guy with the cigar and mustache to tell you it's okay shoot the guy who's gonna blow you up is a bad idea. I do wish that "standing orders" didn't mean you have to stand there and die sometimes...

[SteveZilla]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Thank you. I think you've adequately proven my point that waiting for an absolute conformation ISN'T a good idea.

 

In the Real World, like many things, it carries it's own risks. But a policy of shoot first and apologize later (if wrong) carries it's own risks. With the airliner, I see it as deciding identity (and thus threat) without enough information. With the USS Cole, I see it as being deliberately misled about the boat's identity (intent). IIRC the boat the bombers used looked just like a large number of the other boats in use in the harbor. In which case, they were essentially using camouflage.

 

To me, one is a case of mistaken identity from lack of reliable information, the other a case of being deliberately misled by concerted enemy effort.

 

In *both* instances, I think the fire policies were likely flawed. IMO, the first was Shoot First, Ask Questions Later; In the second it was Don't Shoot Until Already Taking Fire (And Given Permission To Return Fire). The first is too Proactive, the second was too Reactive. IMO the second one is a repeat of the error that got the marines killed in the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. There the sentries were not allowed to carry their weapons loaded.

 

I'd really like to get this thread back on track now. Anybody who wishes to continue discussing this side-thread (derail) is more than welcome to start a new thread about it.

[Checkmate]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

In the Real World, like many things, it carries it's own risks. But a policy of shoot first and apologize later (if wrong) carries it's own risks. With the airliner, I see it as deciding identity (and thus threat) without enough information. With the USS Cole, I see it as being deliberately misled about the boat's identity (intent). IIRC the boat the bombers used looked just like a large number of the other boats in use in the harbor. In which case, they were essentially using camouflage.

 

To me, one is a case of mistaken identity from lack of reliable information, the other a case of being deliberately misled by concerted enemy effort.

 

In *both* instances, I think the fire policies were likely flawed. IMO, the first was Shoot First, Ask Questions Later; In the second it was Don't Shoot Until Already Taking Fire (And Given Permission To Return Fire). The first is too Proactive, the second was too Reactive. IMO the second one is a repeat of the error that got the marines killed in the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. There the sentries were not allowed to carry their weapons loaded.

 

I'd really like to get this thread back on track now. Anybody who wishes to continue discussing this side-thread (derail) is more than welcome to start a new thread about it.

The problem you're not seeing is they are both the EXACT SAME SITUATION. While the bombers of the Cole were using the same type of craft, none of the other craft got close. It was illegal for them to do so.

Cole to boat: What are you doing?

No answer

Cole to boat: What are you doing?

No answer

Cole:?? Screw it let's hope for the best...B O O M

 

Crusier to Plane: What are you doing?

No answer:

Cruiser to Plane: What are you doing?

No answer:

Cruiser: Screw it take them out.

 

Now they are both the SAME situation and when in that situation there are only two options, one went one way, the other went the other way, and you're saying they are both wrong? Sorry you can't have it both ways.

 

There aren't really any Supermen available to get a visual on a plane to see if the pilot is trying to kill people on purpose, or if he's just a complete moron (which is why that plane REALLY got shot down). If a pilot of a plane doesn't use IFF, doesn't answer when hailed, goes WAY off his flight path over things are are well known you shouldn't go over, at a time when it's been published things are happening you shouldn't be around, the Navy Ship has two options:

1. Let him go and hope he doesn't kill anyone, including you.

2. Take him out to make sure he doesn't kill anyone, including you.

 

Sorry I hate when one side gets in the last word and THEN says start a new thread. Now if you disagree feel free to start that thread.

[Sean Waters]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Who cares if it's realistic? Just say the sensors are very well designed.

 

Since you seem to be detecting machines, I would go with Detect: "Whatever It is They Use for a Battery" Emissions instead of "Life Energy."

 

Just thought it would look nicer on the sheet, that's all.

 

I'd care. Well to this extent: i'd want to know what the detect is detecting as 'enemies' is a pretty flexible concept. Whilst you can design a detect to do pretty much anything, I require it to have some logical basis or you run the risk of creating a form of specific but extremely reliable and easy to use telepathy.

 

If the detect was working off the type of equipment that others carried then cool: if you have a Viper blaster then you are an enemy...if you have an Until blaster you are not. Mind you it is not really detecting enemies then: it is detecting characteristics that would tend to indicate an enemy, or a friend, which is a very different...and dangerous....thing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

Actually' date=' it proves that waiting for the guy with the cigar and mustache to tell you it's okay shoot the guy who's gonna blow you up is a bad idea. I do wish that "standing orders" didn't mean you have to stand there and die sometimes...[/quote']

 

....but surely that is the pinacle of heroism, giving the benefit of the doubt, and losing your life for your beliefs that it is better to suffer the consequences of evil than assume that everyone is an enemy and treat them accordingly?

[Manic Typist]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

I'd care. Well to this extent: i'd want to know what the detect is detecting as 'enemies' is a pretty flexible concept. Whilst you can design a detect to do pretty much anything, I require it to have some logical basis or you run the risk of creating a form of specific but extremely reliable and easy to use telepathy.

 

If the detect was working off the type of equipment that others carried then cool: if you have a Viper blaster then you are an enemy...if you have an Until blaster you are not. Mind you it is not really detecting enemies then: it is detecting characteristics that would tend to indicate an enemy, or a friend, which is a very different...and dangerous....thing.

 

I agree, that's why I was suggesting alternative Detects rather than "Enemy."

[SteveZilla]

Re: How to build: Targeting Computer

 

The problem you're not seeing is they are both the EXACT SAME SITUATION.

 

I disagree.

 

While the bombers of the Cole were using the same type of craft, none of the other craft got close. It was illegal for them to do so.

Cole to boat: What are you doing?

No answer

Cole to boat: What are you doing?

No answer

Cole:?? Screw it let's hope for the best...B O O M

 

The fault there was in the overly restrictive rules of engagement from the pentagon, not with the crew.

 

Crusier to Plane: What are you doing?

No answer:

Cruiser to Plane: What are you doing?

No answer:

Cruiser: Screw it take them out.

 

The fault there was in the overly aggressive rules of engagement as well as *several* mistakes the inexperienced crew made.

 

There aren't really any Supermen available to get a visual on a plane to see if the pilot is trying to kill people on purpose, or if he's just a complete moron (which is why that plane REALLY got shot down). If a pilot of a plane doesn't use IFF, doesn't answer when hailed, goes WAY off his flight path over things are are well known you shouldn't go over, at a time when it's been published things are happening you shouldn't be around, the Navy Ship has two options:

1. Let him go and hope he doesn't kill anyone, including you.

2. Take him out to make sure he doesn't kill anyone, including you.

 

Apparently you didn't read the link I posted about the Iran Air airliner shoot-down.

 

1. The policy to automatically label all aircraft as hostile that took off from Bandar Abbas airport when it was well known that it served both civilian and military aircraft is flawed.

 

2. The Vincennes was actually inside of Iran's territorial waters, not forty miles south (where the ship had been ordered by fleet headquarters to stay).

 

3. Flight 655 was directly inside of its commercial flight path, not four miles outside of it.

 

4. The first person to try to establish the plane's identity was Petty Officer Andrew Anderson, who sent out the electronic query, "Identify, Friend or Foe?" The automated response from Flight 655 came back as "commair"--a commercial airliner.

 

5. Anderson tried to confirm this, but in checking navy listings of scheduled flights over the Gulf, Anderson apparently missed Flight 655, possibly confused by the Gulf's four different time zones.

 

6. The Vincennes sent out the first of four warnings over the military emergency channel for the plane to change its course. Three subsequent warnings were sent out over the civilian emergency channel as well, although none were broadcast over air traffic control--despite the Vincennes having the capability.

 

7. When Anderson again sent out the "Identify, Friend or Foe?" query, he received a different response: military aircraft. Rogers' decision to fire was made while under the impression that the query was correct--in fact, Anderson had forgotten to reset the system after the first query, and the response he received was probably from a fighter plane on the runway back at Bandar Abbas.

 

8. Rogers held that, at the time that he ordered for the crew to fire, the plane was descending and rapidly approaching--in fact, Flight 655 was actually ascending, and its speed was holding steady.

 

9. The air warfare coordinator on board, Lt. Cmdr. Scott Lustig, received a commendation medal for his ability to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure"--the same firing procedure that shot down Flight 655.

 

Sorry I hate when one side gets in the last word and THEN says start a new thread. Now if you disagree feel free to start that thread.

 

At least I suggested a new thread instead of just continuing to derail this one.