Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2640 on: March 15, 2020, 09:54:41 AM »
Not... really?

I mean, there are some limitations but off the top of my head.

Automated record keeping already tracks ships and their demonstrated traits. This could be an issue.

Setting a transponder to a false identity if there's no sensor in range to detect the ship has the AI handle it as if the ship is the false identity, this includes diplomatic impacts. Even if the ship is acting in ways the class strictly speaking should not be capable of, the AI discards the discrepancy and does not update the false identity (to prevent a jumble of contradicting data screwing things up).

If there is a sensor in range, the AI may register something is strange if the demonstrated thermal signal is higher than what the database says it should be capable of (as engine power and thermal signature can be dialed down), or if the EM signal is different from what it should be (shields and sensors both project known amounts of EM signal).

If the AI register's something is strange it may send a ship to investigate with active sensors. More course resolution active sensors are less effective/slower at the edge of their range than finer resolution sensors at correcting a false identification, and grow more effective more slowly than finer resolution sensors (ie, a 50 HS resolution sensor can start with identifying at greater range than a 5 HS resolution sensor, but that 5 HS sensor will have much better chances at any comparative range).

In case of salvage, if an empire knows who was supposedly in combat and can salvage the wrecks, there's a chance that the empire figures out that the damage done does not fit the damage profiles of what weapons it has on record that are appropriate to the combatants. It will record this separately as the correct part with a confidence value. More hits on the same salvaged ship make the confidence value higher. If it's allied with the owner of the destroyed ship it may pass this information along.

In case of salvage, if it identified that the damage profile is incorrect it will check its database to see if it knows the correct component and any similar components. If it does, it rolls and checks the result against how confident it is it properly identified the component. Even if the roll doesn't result in accurate identification of the component, if it has records of similar components from the same empire it is more likely to accurately identify the empire responsible.

If an empire accurately identifies which empire is actually responsible for the damage it is likely to share this information to its allies, and may share this information with a hostile empire they are not at war with but were the victim of the attack. It may share this information with neutrals, and will not share this information with enemies.

So long as the false identity holds up any action taken by the ship with the wrongly set transponder will be pointed to whatever empire is being framed.

If the false identity fails the perpetrating empire sees a diplomatic hit with the empire it was fooling. If the empire that was being framed finds out the empire that was framing them also takes a diplomatic hit with the framed empire. This hit is smaller if both the framed and framing empires were allies and hostile or at war with the empire that was being fooled.

Faking the identity of a civilian ship as another civilian ship or a military ship with another military ship that is of your own empire gives a smaller diplomatic hit. Faking the identity of a civilian ship by a warship gives a bigger diplomatic hit.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2641 on: March 15, 2020, 10:17:31 AM »
I meant that a human can comprehend that deception is possible, even though all empirical evidence suggests otherwise, and act accordingly. An AI can only work with the available data.
 
The following users thanked this post: bro918

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2642 on: March 15, 2020, 03:49:36 PM »
Yeah, that'd be difficult to program, the method I offered only partially covers it.

After all, it allows the AI to notice something's odd when it's got data, but the sort of data crunching that's necessary to come up with 'wait, this item being here is completely out of place' is very difficult. There'd be so many factors to involve.
 

Offline L0ckAndL0ad

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • L
  • Posts: 168
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2643 on: March 16, 2020, 10:53:59 AM »
Love the new implementation of group contacts!

Every time I see a large group of alien ships, I have troubles. Especially when see neutral/friendly armadas of dozens of ships. It's really hard to figure out at a glance what you're dealing with. It should be much better now with this change.

If only fleet vs fleet auto-targeting for multi-FCS ships was easy as well..
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2644 on: March 17, 2020, 07:22:28 AM »
Sending out a false transponder code works as long as you stay out of any sensor detection.

If you get into the range of a thermal sensor, your engine better have the same thermal pattern as the real ship... or else you will raise a flag in the message center. "Sensor anomaly detected in ship XX. Engine thermal is different to recorded patterns."

If you get into the range of an active sensor your hull size better fits the recorded configuration... or else you will raise a flag in the message center.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2645 on: March 17, 2020, 04:04:20 PM »
@TMaekler

 - Hey, that's pretty good! The NPRs could check across that criteria, too.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2646 on: March 26, 2020, 11:55:36 AM »
I was wondering about the reasoning for the survey speed change, or rather why you would ever want to slow it down. Then I found this: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9841.msg119997#msg119997

and yeah, I totally get that. Most games the periphery area is vastly larger than your empire, leading to battles over empty systems.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2647 on: March 26, 2020, 12:38:24 PM »
It's a really great idea. Besides the obvious usefulness for war,  I often lament how most systems end up being... left behind, because there's much better alternatives. If I can choose between 20 systems to exploit, I'll pick the best one after all.

But this change makes most systems a lot more useful. Especially because due to the lack of slowing down, games will become longer hopefully.

So, say you slow down surveying by a factor of ten. Or twenty. It will be very slow, so you have a much higher incentive to exploit the systems you find. The "decent" system close to you ends up being useful, exploited and maybe colonized. Because a useful system right now is often better than a potential great system you may or may not find in 4 years.
 

Offline Kristover

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 135 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2648 on: March 26, 2020, 01:20:28 PM »
I just jumped on a VB6 game to gauge how quickly it took to survey and oh boy, did I forget how quickly it went.  Single low-tech survey vessel with low-level officer with survey skill finished Luna in half a day, Mars in 4.5 days.  I plan on reducing survey speed to at least 50%.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2649 on: March 26, 2020, 01:32:41 PM »
This is also a great change for those of us who like to play NPR knife-fights (3-5 systems max, start w/ 1 NPR) in order to make surveying relevant or irrelevant to taste.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2650 on: March 26, 2020, 02:17:00 PM »
I just jumped on a VB6 game to gauge how quickly it took to survey and oh boy, did I forget how quickly it went.  Single low-tech survey vessel with low-level officer with survey skill finished Luna in half a day, Mars in 4.5 days.  I plan on reducing survey speed to at least 50%.

Often it isn't the actual survey that is time-consuming, but the distance between planets or survey locations. Luna and Mars are small so relatively quick, but a widely scattered asteroid belt can take a while.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2651 on: March 26, 2020, 02:48:36 PM »
This is a great idea and will add the possibility for a lot of variation with a small tweak. Never thought of it before, but suddenly it seems like the default survey speed is too fast.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2652 on: March 26, 2020, 03:18:12 PM »
Personally I've never found it so, but then I also thoroughly survey every system before moving on.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2653 on: March 26, 2020, 03:44:02 PM »
Often it isn't the actual survey that is time-consuming, but the distance between planets or survey locations. Luna and Mars are small so relatively quick, but a widely scattered asteroid belt can take a while.

I have rarely found asteroid belts very useful, at least in vb6 Aurora. Asteroid mining ships require very large shipyards and usually shipyard capability is very limited. Of course, I always start with conventional start so I have to BUILD those shipyards.

Personally I won't obsess over asteroid belts. I will survey comets, but I'm more keen on planets and survey asteroid belts when I have free time or when they're relatively quick (close asteroids).

I don't know, it always feels like in VB6 aurora I use mayyybe one system in 10, because there's some systems that are so good that the others are not worth it. Which is why the possibiltiy of slowing down survey appeals to me, also in order to really slow down jump points survey.

Basically, if I cannot survey that fast, I'm more encouraged to work with the systems I have close by instead of choosing the perfect system 5 jumps from home. Seems interesting to me.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2654 on: March 26, 2020, 03:55:44 PM »
In order for survey to feel allot slower I think you will have to increase it by say ten times of so. As Steve said...  most of the time the ships is spending moving rather than surveying.

When I start my first serious campaign I will likely crank it up to about x10 and tech cost to about x5 and run multiple factions. I usually feel that technology rush forward a bit too fast and contrary to Steve I like small steps to technology increases. I would not mind that technology had about five times more levels in between the ones we have and then it was about 10 times slower as well. I like a gradual increase in power so differences in tech is not so pronounced, it can sometimes provide very big advantages.
I have no problem with the idea that by the time your battleship get of the dockyard you already have new fresh technology that supersede that ship but the change would not be a huge one. This is pretty much how technology and ships have evolved over most of the modern time.
 
The following users thanked this post: TMaekler