If I understand it correctly, the current formula for PD working on a missile with decoys is:

Chance to hit missile = 1 / 1 + 0.2*(# alive decoys)*clamp(Missile ECM - PD ECCM + 5, 0, 5).

In effect, it means that if you aren't confident your ECCM is better than their ECM, you might as well strip ECCM from your PD dedicated BFCs (especially point blank rail/gauss), since the decoys will operate at full efficiency regardless.

So far my testing confirms the upper clamp, that is, a decoy cannot be MORE effective than "the same as a missile," and the lower clamp is fairly obvious.

If that's correct, I find it a little weird. Not difficult by any means, but yet another thing that's a little unintuitive, that i'll have to update all my designs for. If I could tweak the numbers myself I would, but I'm totally unfamiliar with C# decompiling and tweaking so that's a no-go unless there's relevant numbers in the DB... which I doubt, but I'll see soon.

There's two "simple" changes that can be made to make this behave more intuitively. Either, or a combination of both, could be used. Or neither, if this little quirk is desired behavior.

1. Allowing decoys to be bigger than a missile, aka removing the clamp on the upper end. Maybe just swapping clamp 0,x,5 for max 0,x. Maybe making it so that it scales slower when it's "bigger", so maybe 2 ECM vs ECCM advantage is required to make the weight go from 5 to 6, so to speak, then another 2 to go to 7, or maybe another 3 to go to 7. All subject to tuning.

Under this regime, ECCM is a losing game but not playing it is even worse, and by a lot. Not putting ECCM basically makes the PD BFC useless, and turns amm into a decoy sweeper.

2. Shifting the center of the linear section closer towards equal ECM/ECCM. AKA, keeping the clamp 0,5 but changing the base to 3 or 4, so having 1-2 level higher missile ECM gives max bonus and having even ECCM gives tangible (but small) benefit compared to running 0 ECCM.

Under this regime, Missile decoys are worse to begin with, but ECCM now can actually be significant at equal tech (20% reduction if the timings happen to line up well for you and a much higher chance of doing nothing is not "significant" in my eyes). You CAN choose to give up the electronic war if you know you're VERY behind, but if you think you're competitive you can try to fight on this front as well.

For example at C = 3, if you think you're equal tech but actually you're 1 behind, you still reduce decoy effectiveness by 20%. If you ARE equal tech, you reduce decoy effectiveness by 40%. If you're AHEAD, you get even better results. As the missile party, you still get some effectiveness from decoys even at ECM 1, but ECM 2 and 3 now get additional importance as "sealing the deal" vs 0 ECCM skimpers.

Having said all this, once again I stress: if this design quirk is intended behavior, then feel free to ignore this post. I'll look for solutions on my own, because I'm a dials/knobs addict, I can't stop poking at them until it feels just right, and giving up entirely on the electronic war entirely just because your tech isn't strictly better feels VERY wrong to me.

EDIT: Also, ECCM is double RP cost compared to missile ECM. If a species is teching hard into missiles, they will very likely be on par or at most 1 tech (1/4 RP cost) behind on ECM tech. I don't need to point out how this is especially brutal late game or low research, where it basically means you can't really "win" even on the tech side before BFC manufacturing cost comes into play.

Quote from: gpt3 on June 24, 2025, 11:53:18 PM

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on June 24, 2025, 06:00:38 PM

The 'pre-TN problem' in coding terms is a huge amount of AI code that assumes certain capabilities on the part of a NPR. I would have to go through all that code and add exceptions for the technology and capabilities that an NPR may or may not possess when that code is accessed and then fix all the resulting bugs. I would also have to get the NPR to assess which of the missing capabilities were most important and prioritise them for construction, research, shipbuilding, etc..

It's possible to do it - it's just a HUGE amount of work.

The Industrial NPR is a way to have the presence of a conventional NPR without having to worry about the above.

Will the industrial NPRs have STO ground units? They could use the new conventional beam weapons and hopefully use the same AI code as regular NPRs and Rahkas.

From a narrative perspective, one could imagine Cold War or modern-day humanity desperately repurposing anti-satellite/asteroid-defense systems to (ineffectively) combat aliens.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13463.msg173751#msg173751

D'oh! Reading comprehension failure on my part.

Thanks for adding the conventional -only NPR, that and the conventional weapons are totally up my alley!

I solved the pre-TN problem in my own database forays by adding the installations Basic Industry and University, as well as the Industrial and Space Age techs. Basic industry is the same construction value as Conventional with nothing else, while requiring 500k taxable basic labourers (ten times the required workers of Conventional Industry). Universities cost 600 wealth and provide 0.05 research value, 0.02 academy value, and require 50k workers. Industrial Tech unlocks the Military Academy, GFCC, Financial Centre, Conventional Industry (requiring no minerals, but 1200 wealth), and the ability to convert Basic Industry to Conventional for 1100 wealth (on top of the 120 wealth cost of Basic Industry). Space Age unlocks infrastructure, DSTs, shipyards, spaceports, and cargo/refueling/ordnance stations. Forced Labour was included in a separate tech. The rest were unlocked by TN as in the base game. Costs of the techs were 1,000 and 2,000, comparable to TN at 5,000.

This would mean you'd require 20 Universities to match a Research Facility, 50 to match a Military Academy, and 10 Basic Industry requiring 5 million workers to match a Construction Factory requiring 50k.

That's how I did it, anyway!