Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: February 24, 2009, 10:34:11 AM »

Quote from: "adradjool"
Steve,

Just a question on AI NPR's.  Does the SM receive some of the same reports as player races, and does the AI establish communications with the prisoners they've captured?
The AI controlled races are outside the control of the SM so he doesn't get reports on them. He does know when one race has entered the same system as another, even if one is an NPR. NPRs will interrogate prisoners to gain Spy Points. I don't think I have set them up to establish comms yet but that is a good idea.

Steve
Posted by: schroeam
« on: February 20, 2009, 08:08:13 AM »

Steve,

Just a question on AI NPR's.  Does the SM receive some of the same reports as player races, and does the AI establish communications with the prisoners they've captured?

Adam.
Posted by: jfelten
« on: February 20, 2009, 06:05:43 AM »

Quote from: "waresky"
Hi Steve
an simple "hail":D..

i think spoke for all here..: we r in tremor awaitn for ur bigg new upload..4.0 brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!! NPR!...emotion:SSS

Actually I'm looking more forward to 4.1 after the flood of NPR AI bug reports flood in and get addressed.  But I'll be happy to invest what time I can in to testing 4.0.
Posted by: jfelten
« on: February 20, 2009, 06:03:22 AM »

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
At the moment I am leaning toward some type of very short range (10,000 km max), very long recharge (at least several hours) weapon or EW system that would attack all missiles about to hit that ship. It would cause perhaps 1 point of damage so it wouldn't be that useful in an anti-ship role and it would be wasted against small salvos. It wouldn't eliminate the massed salvo but it would give the attacker player something else to consider. The idea for this came from the static screens (I think that was the name) in Traveller. This won't be in v4.0 because i need to give it some serious though. I will probably include this when I do the EW overhaul.

Steve

I think that idea has a lot of merit.  Sort of like an SFB wild weasel or T-Bomb or such.  Be very careful though that it doesn't become too cheap to deploy in quantity and thereby unbalancing.  Note that SFB WW's and TB's are both artificially limited in SFB to avoid such problems.  The balance point is going to be fairly small IMO.  

Here is another idea along the same lines:  Instead of destroying all missiles in flight how about a system that for lack of a better term "stuns" a percentage of missiles in a stack thereby breaking up a swarm and giving anti-missile defenses more time to target them?  One problem I see with that is that it would apply to small salvoes as well perhaps making missiles under-effective.  Another potential thought problem is that if it was cheap to deploy in quantity missile stacks would get sub-divided until they were individual missiles.  

Another idea I'll throw out is area effect missile defenses that destroy more attacking missiles the denser the attacking missile swarm is, but doesn't take out an entire swarm in one shot.
Posted by: waresky
« on: February 19, 2009, 03:47:46 PM »

Hi Steve
an simple "hail":D..

i think spoke for all here..: we r in tremor awaitn for ur bigg new upload..4.0 brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!! NPR!...emotion:SSS
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: February 19, 2009, 01:51:01 PM »

Quote from: "Beersatron"
Would just like to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this read and registered just so I could say so :)
Thanks! I appreciate you taking the time to make the post. It's always good to get positive feedback.

Steve
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: February 19, 2009, 01:49:45 PM »

Quote from: "jfelten"
Steve, does the AI make any efforts to conserve ammunition or does it keep firing missiles as fast as possible until all targets are destroyed?  From your story it sounds like they NPR might have used some intelligence in how it fired missiles.  Otherwise I could imagine an AI fleet emptying its racks at a single freighter if the missile flight time was long enough.  
They do attempt to conserve ammunition in certain circumstances, as the above freighter annihilation situation was one of my early concerns.

Quote
On the thought of "disallowing" building up missile swarms.  I also would not like to see missile waypoint targeting eliminated.  Perhaps if missiles upon reaching a waypoint were to continue on their last course in a ballistic manner until manually given a new target, that would be a way to reduce gathering them for swarms.  Or at least make creating a swarm require a lot more planning and skill.
One of my primary designs goals is to avoid micromanagement. Therefore, I don't want players to have to play around with missile salvos too much on a regular basis, although it would be ok for occasional recon drones, etc..

At the moment I am leaning toward some type of very short range (10,000 km max), very long recharge (at least several hours) weapon or EW system that would attack all missiles about to hit that ship. It would cause perhaps 1 point of damage so it wouldn't be that useful in an anti-ship role and it would be wasted against small salvos. It wouldn't eliminate the massed salvo but it would give the attacker player something else to consider. The idea for this came from the static screens (I think that was the name) in Traveller. This won't be in v4.0 because i need to give it some serious though. I will probably include this when I do the EW overhaul.

Steve
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: February 19, 2009, 01:38:42 PM »

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
I presume then that you've coded a means for the AI to picket jump points.  This is just the tip of the iceberk related to AI stategic analysis and reaction.
The AI will picket some jump points based on previous events and the importance of the jump point. However, Aurora is such a complex game that I am sure the AI is going to do some stupid things in the first few versions. My goal for version 4.0 is fairly basic functionality but I will improve this over time based on player feedback.

Steve
Posted by: waresky
« on: February 17, 2009, 11:41:16 AM »

HI Beersatron,ur welcome:))..
Build ur personel History on ur UNIVERSE's Aurora.
Steve enjoy us with her campaign..we awaitn for some new from Frontline and "Angels" Aliens..
Hope the Commonwealth find the victory over them..but am fear :D
Posted by: Beersatron
« on: February 17, 2009, 11:25:36 AM »

Would just like to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this read and registered just so I could say so :)
Posted by: Kurt
« on: February 13, 2009, 12:58:11 PM »

Quote from: "jfelten"
Steve, does the AI make any efforts to conserve ammunition or does it keep firing missiles as fast as possible until all targets are destroyed?  From your story it sounds like they NPR might have used some intelligence in how it fired missiles.  Otherwise I could imagine an AI fleet emptying its racks at a single freighter if the missile flight time was long enough.  

On the thought of "disallowing" building up missile swarms.  I also would not like to see missile waypoint targeting eliminated.  Perhaps if missiles upon reaching a waypoint were to continue on their last course in a ballistic manner until manually given a new target, that would be a way to reduce gathering them for swarms.  Or at least make creating a swarm require a lot more planning and skill.

I like the ability to target waypoints.  This gives the missile using player another option in his deployment of his missiles, increasing the tactics available.  Just my opinion.  

Kurt
Posted by: jfelten
« on: February 13, 2009, 11:08:08 AM »

Steve, does the AI make any efforts to conserve ammunition or does it keep firing missiles as fast as possible until all targets are destroyed?  From your story it sounds like they NPR might have used some intelligence in how it fired missiles.  Otherwise I could imagine an AI fleet emptying its racks at a single freighter if the missile flight time was long enough.  

On the thought of "disallowing" building up missile swarms.  I also would not like to see missile waypoint targeting eliminated.  Perhaps if missiles upon reaching a waypoint were to continue on their last course in a ballistic manner until manually given a new target, that would be a way to reduce gathering them for swarms.  Or at least make creating a swarm require a lot more planning and skill.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: February 12, 2009, 11:58:26 AM »

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
It should be interesting. The use of recon drones at the Smolensk - Archangelsk jump point showed no picket and Yaguar showed nothing at the Budapest - Archangelsk jump point so surprise should be on the Commonwealth's side. The battle fleet formations have also shown an ability to hold off the relatively slow waves of Angel missiles. The problems will be if the jump points are defended or if there are more Angel warships in Archangelsk than the Commonwealth has seen so far. The President represents me with my "frustrated Commonwealth" hat on rather than me with my "pleased with my AI-controlled bad guys so far" hat. Steve

I presume then that you've coded a means for the AI to picket jump points.  This is just the tip of the iceberk related to AI stategic analysis and reaction.
Posted by: waresky
« on: February 12, 2009, 10:56:11 AM »

Am fear for ur Effort on Angel's System..
Good DeepTrack Stations,good CruiserGuidedMissile-Class (Angesl),though toward "our" puny Missiles..fastest than our ships..and at last:play at Home.An well defended System are a BoreDoom situation..
System Defence Boat,armed with more weapons because not need jump or many drive,short logistic lane,communications,Resupply,refuel,reammo,maintenance more fastes..

All lead to a 50% disastrous Commonwealth Campaign.And FIRST disastrous WAS ever the Hurry Mind.
Good Luck
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: February 12, 2009, 10:39:13 AM »

Quote from: "vergeraiders"
>There was barely time for the crew to brace themselves. Fifteen explosions shook the destroyer to its keel, damaging two engines and knocking out >its fire control. Her armour was almost totally obliterated and only the wide distribution of hits saved the ship from destruction. Four minutes later a >second wave of fifty missiles arrived. Commander Wilmore was killed by a hit on the bridge and seconds later Gridley blew up. Only one hundred of >her five hundred man crew made it to the life pods.

Is there any option for a imminent doom pre destruction bailout? After the first wave of missiles the ship was clearly doomed. It had no weapons that could fire, no ammo for the weapons it had, no fire control and no almsot armor. A figting tradition is fine as long as you can fight. Now there might well be a morale check to determine if ejecting to be captured is better or worse than a quick death in combat, but there could be other situations where rescue by friendlies is much more likely.

The same could be said of the freighters too, set them on some form of auto pilot and abandon ship in some type of small craft.
There is an Abandon Ship button on the damage control tab of the Ship window. This will get the surviving crew off and scuttle the ship. In this case I did consider using it but decided to try and repair the engines first. The Angels sometimes spread their missiles waves out quite a lot so if this was one of those times, it might have been possible to make a run for it.

Quote
The President is one high stakes gambler :)
It should be interesting. The use of recon drones at the Smolensk - Archangelsk jump point showed no picket and Yaguar showed nothing at the Budapest - Archangelsk jump point so surprise should be on the Commonwealth's side. The battle fleet formations have also shown an ability to hold off the relatively slow waves of Angel missiles. The problems will be if the jump points are defended or if there are more Angel warships in Archangelsk than the Commonwealth has seen so far. The President represents me with my "frustrated Commonwealth" hat on rather than me with my "pleased with my AI-controlled bad guys so far" hat.

Steve