Civilian Transponders

[jfelten]

The issue would not be the technology, rather how 'realistic' you would want things to get.  The management of the encryption loads would be a real world problem in this scenario.  If every civilian ship had an encrypted IFF transponder all it would take is the loss of a single ship to enemy action to cause the change of crypto for every ship in the empire (unless you can confirm the ship was lost and the enemy definately did not get the crypto).  In this case the time delay for a large empire is significant and could lead to ships being misidentified as hostile.

Each ship gets unique one time codes, reloaded automatically every time they enter port.  And/Or each gets a unique key they encrypt their codes with.  We already deal with much more complex situations in the real world.  I'm sure people in the future will be even more clever.

[welchbloke]

The issue would not be the technology, rather how 'realistic' you would want things to get.  The management of the encryption loads would be a real world problem in this scenario.  If every civilian ship had an encrypted IFF transponder all it would take is the loss of a single ship to enemy action to cause the change of crypto for every ship in the empire (unless you can confirm the ship was lost and the enemy definately did not get the crypto).  In this case the time delay for a large empire is significant and could lead to ships being misidentified as hostile.

Each ship gets unique one time codes, reloaded automatically every time they enter port.  And/Or each gets a unique key they encrypt their codes with.  We already deal with much more complex situations in the real world.  I'm sure people in the future will be even more clever.

I have a fair degree of experience with crypto/IFF and the above situation is not a technology problem it's an information management issue.  In order to know that the IFF is correct you have to know that the returning signal meets the criteria you were expecting; therefore, you have to know the encryption method and key.  This means that all users have to have the same database of codes/keys.  One-time pads only really work for a single pair of correspondents.  Once the database is compromised all codes/keys in that database will be assumed to have been made public.  The military reduce the vulnerability by ensuring that crypto is physically very secure and by limiting the lifetime of each set of codes/keys.  Just before the current set expires the new set is issued.  So if a database is lost the data will only be useful to the enemy for a limited time.  If the crypto is compromised everyone dumps the old crypto and loads a rapidly issued new set.  When you start talking about a multi-system empire the rapid reissue of crypto becomes a logistical nightmare. The more I think about it the more I think that the most playable solution is to allow the civilian ships to 'run silent' when ordered.

[jfelten]

I have a fair degree of experience with crypto/IFF and the above situation is not a technology problem it's an information management issue.  In order to know that the IFF is correct you have to know that the returning signal meets the criteria you were expecting; therefore, you have to know the encryption method and key.  This means that all users have to have the same database of codes/keys.  One-time pads only really work for a single pair of correspondents.  Once the database is compromised all codes/keys in that database will be assumed to have been made public.  The military reduce the vulnerability by ensuring that crypto is physically very secure and by limiting the lifetime of each set of codes/keys.  Just before the current set expires the new set is issued.  So if a database is lost the data will only be useful to the enemy for a limited time.  If the crypto is compromised everyone dumps the old crypto and loads a rapidly issued new set.  When you start talking about a multi-system empire the rapid reissue of crypto becomes a logistical nightmare. The more I think about it the more I think that the most playable solution is to allow the civilian ships to 'run silent' when ordered.

If you have a fair degree of experience then you are probably aware the U.S. military alone has hundreds if not thousands of crypto devices and we have no problem keeping them organized.  It stands to reason that a star spanning empire will have much greater organizational resources in addition to superior technology.  And if there is one problem that technology can solve, it is information management.  All users do not need to have all of the codes/keys.  They only need the subset that applies to them.  

For that matter, in the games of Aurora I've read about so far the number of ships is a tiny fraction of present day military ships.  They might be star spanning empires, but they are tiny compared to real world numbers and tonnage.  A couple clerks with notebooks and pencils could keep track of where everything is at any given moment for the Aurora empires I've read about so far.  

We can imagine the future however we like, but outside of some dystopian future I would find it very hard to believe that we are going to regress in these areas.

[welchbloke]

I have a fair degree of experience with crypto/IFF and the above situation is not a technology problem it's an information management issue.  In order to know that the IFF is correct you have to know that the returning signal meets the criteria you were expecting; therefore, you have to know the encryption method and key.  This means that all users have to have the same database of codes/keys.  One-time pads only really work for a single pair of correspondents.  Once the database is compromised all codes/keys in that database will be assumed to have been made public.  The military reduce the vulnerability by ensuring that crypto is physically very secure and by limiting the lifetime of each set of codes/keys.  Just before the current set expires the new set is issued.  So if a database is lost the data will only be useful to the enemy for a limited time.  If the crypto is compromised everyone dumps the old crypto and loads a rapidly issued new set.  When you start talking about a multi-system empire the rapid reissue of crypto becomes a logistical nightmare. The more I think about it the more I think that the most playable solution is to allow the civilian ships to 'run silent' when ordered.

If you have a fair degree of experience then you are probably aware the U.S. military alone has hundreds if not thousands of crypto devices and we have no problem keeping them organized.  It stands to reason that a star spanning empire will have much greater organizational resources in addition to superior technology.  And if there is one problem that technology can solve, it is information management.  All users do not need to have all of the codes/keys.  They only need the subset that applies to them.  

For that matter, in the games of Aurora I've read about so far the number of ships is a tiny fraction of present day military ships.  They might be star spanning empires, but they are tiny compared to real world numbers and tonnage.  A couple clerks with notebooks and pencils could keep track of where everything is at any given moment for the Aurora empires I've read about so far.  

We can imagine the future however we like, but outside of some dystopian future I would find it very hard to believe that we are going to regress in these areas.

I agree with you as far as the future technological development is concerned.  I'm not going to go any further with the crypto discussion except to say that in my experience keeping track of crypto(UK/US or other) and keeping them all filled and organised appropriately is not as simple or error free as you are implying.  As far as the subset of codes/keys is concerned, for Aurora the subset is all ships from a particular empire otherwise ships will appear to be hostile to vessels of their own side.  I was more concenred about the implications of trying to rekey all crypto in a multi-system empire when limited by speed of light communications.

[jfelten]

I agree with you as far as the future technological development is concerned.  I'm not going to go any further with the crypto discussion except to say that in my experience keeping track of crypto(UK/US or other) and keeping them all filled and organised appropriately is not as simple or error free as you are implying.  As far as the subset of codes/keys is concerned, for Aurora the subset is all ships from a particular empire otherwise ships will appear to be hostile to vessels of their own side.  I was more concenred about the implications of trying to rekey all crypto in a multi-system empire when limited by speed of light communications.

The only thing I want to add is that barring someone actually boarding a ship and taking it intact and being able to overcome all the locks etc., being able to interrogate a ship to find out who it is is trivial with even basic concepts and not spoofable.  I don't really think boarding would work either, but at least it isn't totally unbelievable, just nearly so.

[Randy]

My preference would be option 5.

This is more in line with the way things would be done - either on all the time or off in a risk area.

  Of course, there should also be some penalty to a system that has been ordered to have IFF turned off, perhaps add a short delay (6-12 hours) to the time required to unload a ship running in IFF silent mode. This because the receiving space port can't anticipate the ships arrival and prepare to minimize load/unload time.

[vergeraiders]

There should be some option for the ranking officer to issue 'suggestions' to civilian shipping. Such as turn off the transponder, alter course, leave the system, etc. There should also be some chance (probably dependant on govt type) for the civilian to ignore that suggestion or even do something completely different.

There should also be a way to commendeer the ship (by matching course and speed with an armed ship seems to be enough).

There should also be the potential for repurcussions, like no new civilian ports/ships/ships of that class/trips to that system etc.

[ShadoCat]

My order of preference would be: 4, 5, 3, 1, 2

ditto, with the addition that I think 4, 5, and 3 make sense together.  With 4, I assume transponders would shutdown for hostile contacts as well

This one gets my vote as well.

[SteveAlt]

For v4.0, I have added an option for players to flag systems in which civilians will turn off their transponders. To reflect bureacratic delays, any change in this status will only apply to ships entering the system after the status has been set or those that set new orders while in the system (such as drop off colonists or survey a system body).  

As for civilians turning off transponders as a result of hostile contacts in the same system, it occurred to me after making the original post that civilians probably wouldn't know if there were contacts in the system or not. They would have to rely on the military to tell them, which makes it effectively the same as the military telling them to turn off transponders.

Steve

[SteveAlt]

Another interesting question has just popped up in this area.

I am coding for 'civilian' NPR ships such as freighters or colony ships to run away from unknown contacts. I hadn't intended it but as soon as the code was up and running, the player race civilian ships started doing the same. My frst reaction was to prevent the code applying to player race civilians but when I thought about it a little more, I guess it probably should apply. In that way, the Player Race (PR) civilian ships that players can't control will at least have a sense of self-preservation. They will recognise each other by their transponder codes and not run away under those circumstances. However, it then occurred to me that if two PR civilian ships are in a system where transponders are turned off and sensors can only pick them up as thermal contacts, they will run away from each other with possible comedic results. This does seem realistic though and is a major downside of having civilians turn off their transponders.

Comments?

Steve

[schroeam]

Another interesting question has just popped up in this area.

I am coding for 'civilian' NPR ships such as freighters or colony ships to run away from unknown contacts. I hadn't intended it but as soon as the code was up and running, the player race civilian ships started doing the same. My frst reaction was to prevent the code applying to player race civilians but when I thought about it a little more, I guess it probably should apply. In that way, the Player Race (PR) civilian ships that players can't control will at least have a sense of self-preservation. They will recognise each other by their transponder codes and not run away under those circumstances. However, it then occurred to me that if two PR civilian ships are in a system where transponders are turned off and sensors can only pick them up as thermal contacts, they will run away from each other with possible comedic results. This does seem realistic though and is a major downside of having civilians turn off their transponders.

Comments?


Steve

This sounds plausible, however, what would prevent the civvies from querying the other ships for their identity?  At least this way they wouldn't necessarily just abandon their mission, but throw in some randomness as to whether the ship's trust each other, or if the other ship even responds.

Adam.

[SteveAlt]

This sounds plausible, however, what would prevent the civvies from querying the other ships for their identity?  At least this way they wouldn't necessarily just abandon their mission, but throw in some randomness as to whether the ship's trust each other, or if the other ship even responds.

If they query the contact though and it turns out to be an alien, they have just given their own position away so civilian captains probably wouldn't want to do that.

Steve

[schroeam]

If they query the contact though and it turns out to be an alien, they have just given their own position away so civilian captains probably wouldn't want to do that.

Steve

Wouldn't the civilian ship's position already be known by the aliens by the time they saw said aliens?

Adam.

[SteveAlt]

If they query the contact though and it turns out to be an alien, they have just given their own position away so civilian captains probably wouldn't want to do that.

Wouldn't the civilian ship's position already be known by the aliens by the time they saw said aliens?

Not necessarily. A more likely scenario is that a planet or a warship spots the thermal contact and the civilian happens to be in the same system. If the warship, planet or civilian ship queries the contact, then that query would give away their position. I am not saying that querying is a bad idea, it might be something I could add to the game, but it would have a downside.

Steve

[Erik L]

If they query the contact though and it turns out to be an alien, they have just given their own position away so civilian captains probably wouldn't want to do that.

Wouldn't the civilian ship's position already be known by the aliens by the time they saw said aliens?

Not necessarily. A more likely scenario is that a planet or a warship spots the thermal contact and the civilian happens to be in the same system. If the warship, planet or civilian ship queries the contact, then that query would give away their position. I am not saying that querying is a bad idea, it might be something I could add to the game, but it would have a downside.

Steve

Maybe make it an order. And a conditional.