Tactical System Effects

[jiduthie (OP)]

Acknowledging beforehand that these would be significant changes that would require programming, performance, and AI requirements which might render them unfeasible, I offer the following braindump:

1. Hiding thermal signatures behind a star. I'd like to see a cone propagating from the point of a given thermal sensor towards a stellar body that precludes, or at least muddies, thermal detection. This would allow fast surprise attacks if you could manage to plot an intercept course which remained within said cone until the moment of attack. Perhaps stellar classification would come into play?

2. Cross Sections reduced when within orbit of a sufficiently large body. Ships can already "hide" by reducing their speed and thus their thermal signature. Cross sections should also be more difficult to discern within close enough orbit of a planet/asteroid large enough to produce the effect. Bonus points for being able to more easily hide in the orbit of a planet with many moons. Double bonus if asteroid belts or clusters also induced this effect.

3. Stellar flares. Flares might have numerous interesting effects on vessels. A possibility might be the equivalent of the "wind gauge." Flares interacting with TN materials in such a way as to increase or decrease a ships speed. They might blind or enhance sensor ranges depending upon whether a given vessel was within their path. Again, assigning different properties to different stellar classifications might be interesting.

Basically, I'd like systems themselves to offer interesting tactical options, akin to how geography, ocean currents and wind patterns affect naval engagements.

[Mor]

3. We have:
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Nebulae
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Black_Holes

[TheDeadlyShoe]

this sort of thing would be cool,  but it'd be important to implement it in a way as processing-friendly as possible.  Sensor checks already chug the game hard.   The easiest way would be sticking to the scheme of having your (relevant) signature scale down depending on your proximity to objects, or during a 'system event', or just owing to the conditions in a particular system.

/still yearns for active-stealthed PDCs

[Mor]

I had the same thought, but combined with PDC bonuses, wouldn't it give a way too big of an advantage to defending fleets?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Hmmmm...nah, I don't think so. Defense is at such a huge disadvantage, considering every planetary system needs its own PDC complement if you're relying on them.  I can't afford to cover all my essential infrastructure with even the most barebones of defenses in my current game, and a low system count has led to at least 2 dormant JPs popping up in zones i thought were secure. 

Even if you establish a good network of PDCs, they can't protect the population or any nearby shipping without going active and revealing themselves.  IMO, active-stealthed PDCs would only get wacky if someone was rich enough to be beyond limits of scarcity. 

In one of Steve's earlier multi-earth campaigns, you could get espionage info/RP by active scanning ships so there was an 'unwritten agreement' not to run actives on Earth. So noone knew about anyone elses PDCs. It led to an interesting guessing game IMO - at least fic-wise.

(p.s.....some might say that sort of thing might add more....depth? Ha ha.)

[Mor]

With your suggestion in mind, camping dark around a planet will usually mean first strike capability. Add to that a PDC with long range active and deep magazines, set it up on border system with holding force, and you got a choke point the AI isn't likely to overcome.

You don't need to set up a PDC in every system, but it make sense to set it up on your forward resupply bases.

[Mor]

it'd be important to implement it in a way as processing-friendly as possible.  Sensor checks already chug the game hard.

It just occurred to me, that I don't know precisely how sensor checks work, technically speaking. Does the game go over each object and checks whats in its detection range or something else?  Any ideas?

[Rod-Serling]

It just occurred to me, that I don't know precisely how sensor checks work, technically speaking. Does the game go over each object and checks whats in its detection range or something else?  Any ideas?

I'm programming Pulsar, so my perspective is from Pulsar.

Yes, the game goes over each ship that has a sensor and checks what is in it's detection range. There are some fancy enhancements that can be done (and we definitely do in Pulsar) to make it faster, but often people take the simplest way and do a Distance check. The problem with a distance check is in a 2D environment is it results in a square-root function, which even on modern processors is relatively slow. If the distance is less than the sensor's range, you're detected.

For what jiduthie is talking about however, a simple distance check wouldn't be enough. You would need to raycast to find objects in front of or behind the object  you're looking at. Raycasts are more expensive. See: https://unity3d.com/learn/tutorials/modules/intermediate/physics/physics-best-practices for information on raycast performance.

[Mor]

The reason I am asking is two fold. Because of a recent suggestion to remove the default EM\Thermal sensors checks. Which made me think that it doesn't make sense make a sensor check for each ship, each time. For example since ships move only in TGs. It would make sense to calculate once per TG its:
1. Max EM\Thermal\Active detection ranges
2. Arranged list of EM\Thermal Emissions and Size.
Then you can do one Distance check and use the max detection range to show all contacts in the list beyond the Emission rage.

If so, then I have an idea to add "stealth" to the game, that should NOT effect performance or change balance, but could offer a little more tactical opportunities.

EDIT: added a critical NOT.

[Rod-Serling]

Reducing sensor checks to only check the most powerful sensor for a given taskgroup is one of the more simple ways to make sensor checks more efficient, but it becomes more complex when ships are located at different places, as they usually are in NPR battle groups.

Even with such optimizations, sensor checks are still relatively expensive. I can't attest to why sensors cause so much slowdown in aurora, as I haven't seen the source, but in my opinion Aurora should not be as adversely affected by sensors as it is.

[Mor]

The problem is that Aurora lack "stealth" mechanics, stealth atm is at best a delay before the "real battle" begins. However, I find stealth and inevitably interdiction tactics fun and interesting in themselves, they provide ways to fight large supply-hungry attack fleets that doesn't comes down to who got the biggest "stack of death".

I'd like to try to improve that by looking at detection rules. Aurora already have a fairly realistic detection scheme. Active sensors act as a Search and Acquisition Radars, tracking contacts over a wide area. Meanwhile, Fire Control act as Targeting Radar and control the firing of all linked weaponry on-board.

Hence we have: Detection Range and Targeting Range.

Suggestion #1:
Lets focus on Thermal\EM passive sensors. Right now, once the enemy enter your sensor Detection Range you instantly gain exact info on any and all contacts. But, what if we add uncertainty to the equation, by simply introducing a sensor Identification Range. An effective range at which the sensors is capable of separating the background noise from valid target(s).

This way, Detection Range will give you awareness that there is something out there, but not exact indication on what it is or how many. While an Identification Range will give you detailed contact(s) info that you got used to. (Obliviously Detection Range>Identification Range)

Basically, you'd still be detected, but not necessarily identified correctly or in time. For example, this will allow to park a raider task group in an asteroid belt, without closer inspection it would give the same indication that any other CMC operation would give, a single dot. Which, would require navy forces that don't want to walk into a trap, to utilize scouts more (less fuel).

Armed with the above info on sensors, this shouldn't increase the complexity.
 

Suggestion #2: (Unrelated to #1)
My second and unrelated suggestion, focused on how Detection Range is calculated. Right now its mainly given as a function of sensor Sensitivity and target Emissions e.g.

 Thermal Detection Range = sensor Sensitivity x target Emissions * constant.

I don't have a lot of time atm (my dog is begging me to go for a jog), so i'll be brief. What will happen if we replace it with:

 Thermal Detection Range = (sensor Sensitivity + target Emissions) * constant.

[jiduthie (OP)]

The problem is that Aurora lack "stealth" mechanics, stealth atm is at best a delay before the "real battle" begins. However, I find stealth and inevitably interdiction tactics fun and interesting in themselves, they provide ways to fight large supply-hungry attack fleets that doesn't comes down to who got the biggest "stack of death".

I agree. In Aurora a lot of the important decision making has already been done before the two fleets meet. In a lot of ways that's realistic and a big part of what makes the game fun is the amount of thought you can put into that area of the game. Still, once you learn the mechanics and how fleets work there is very little you can do to affect the outcome of a battle except not screw up. The suggestions I posted above were an attempt to push that scale a tiny bit in the other direction, and I'm glad to see more suggestions which would accomplish the same.