Reduced Crew, Focused Mines, other things

[LizardSF (OP)]

Two areas of research I think could be interesting:
a)Crew Reduction. This would probably go under Logistics. It would let you research partially-automated versions of most technologies that currently require crew. Perhaps each level of research reduces the crew requirements by 10 or 20 percent (eventually leading to ships which are almost entirely computer-controlled). This would increase the mineral costs of the final item, (and thus the research cost of the project) but not its size/weight when installed in a ship.

b)Focused mines: I'd like to build mines targeted at a specific mineral. These would have an increase in the mining rate of that mineral, but could not mine other minerals. Each would cost slightly less then a normal mine, once researched, and would harvest at one level higher (so if you normally harvest 12, these would harvest 14), but would only harvest one type of mineral.

c)Elemental transmutation: A very advanced technology, this would turn one mineral into another, at a poor ratio: Starting at 10 to 1, with research increasing this slightly (8 to 1, 6 to 1, maybe capping at 5 to 1). You would build these as installations, though orbital versions would be possible. (You would use the orbitals in conjunction with asteroid miners -- each cycle, it would convert all of mineral 'a' stockpiled on the planet to mineral 'b', limited by it input requirements and conversion rate, say, 1000 tons/a month to start, increasing with research. So this technology has two tracks: Rate of conversion and tons/month. You'd need to research each transmuter as a project, specifying input and output minerals.)

d)I'm sure others have mentioned this, but I'd love to see things like agricultural resources become part of the game, so you have 'food' planets as well as 'mining' planets. This gives a value to world with low colonization costs but few or no minerals. I'd also like to see caps on installations -- as it is, I can fit infinite anything on any size body, not that I've ever had a game last long enough to establish more than a few small colonies before I end up with either fuel or mineral crisis that shut me down. (Starting to think the most important ships to build early aren't explorers or warships, but a fleet of sorium harvesters that are churning away long before they seem to be needed.)

[hunter james]

sounds intresting

[Shipright]

On #1 reasearch ing automation for every tech/component seems unnecessarily complicated. Instead you could just have a "Computer Core" or "Ship AI" component that reduces manning by a percentage and can be upgraded to increase this percentage. There should be some advantages/disadvantages associated with it to make crewed/AI ships useful in certain circumstances. You could make an AI ship have a slower learning curve, or advanced AIs could have a chance of going rampant and taking over the ship.

As regards #2 I think a better approach would be to allocate percentage of mining capacity between various minerals whether that mean 100% Duranium or equal for each. More facility types basically doing the same thing seems a waste when there are many other unique facilities we could use.

[alex_brunius]

On #1 reasearch ing automation for every tech/component seems unnecessarily complicated. Instead you could just have a "Computer Core" or "Ship AI" component that reduces manning by a percentage and can be upgraded to increase this percentage. There should be some advantages/disadvantages associated with it to make crewed/AI ships useful in certain circumstances. You could make an AI ship have a slower learning curve, or advanced AIs could have a chance of going rampant and taking over the ship.

Would be interesting to have HPM bursts "Kill" the AI thus turning the ship to a very tempting intact wreck...
That would be a serious and also realistic disadvantage.

Repairs/Maintenance is also something I have a hard time seeing automated to any AI, since we are talking about unpredictable failures.

[Paul M]

The microwave weapons attack things which exist outside of the ship itself (antennas and so so on) so there is no way you could blast the AI in the ships core (or as is more likely distributed throughout the ship) with a maser attack.  If that was possible pretty much anything electronic would be affected by the microwaves...not to mention it would be possible to cook the crew and take the ship intact.

AI's would reduce your manning requirements (probably you could reduce a lot of the auxillary crew...logistics staff and so forth) but also should give you bonuses on your weapons.  I'd suggest if you have say 10 levels of AI possible for a ship then you give something like -5 to 10% to the crew needs per level plus +1-2% to the ships crew rating per level.

AI1 = -5% crew requirements, +1% to crew rating
AI2 = -11% crew requirement, +2% to crew rating
AI3 = -18% crew requirement, +3% to crew rating
AI4 = -26% crew requirement, +5% to crew rating
etc (adjust to taste)

Ex: a ship with a fully trained crew (rating 34) could have with an AI4 onboard an effective crew rating of 39.

[alex_brunius]

The microwave weapons attack things which exist outside of the ship itself (antennas and so so on) so there is no way you could blast the AI in the ships core (or as is more likely distributed throughout the ship) with a maser attack.  If that was possible pretty much anything electronic would be affected by the microwaves...not to mention it would be possible to cook the crew and take the ship intact.

The wiki states the following:

"The High Power Microwave is not affected by armour but it is affected by shields. However, because of the HPMs effectiveness against shields and electronic systems, the single point of damage from the HPM causes three points of damage to shields."
"Once the shields are down, the High Power Microwave only damages systems classed as "Electronic". This currently includes sensors, fire control systems, ECM and ECCM."

Don't you consider integrated ship AI as a big part of "electronic systems"? I do.

I don't think Fire controls are external. They are computers located in the middle of the ship just like AI would.

[Jorgen_CAB]

AI systems would be very vulnerable to microwaves and perhaps even to mesons, so that would have to be considered.

I would also say that the majority of the mass of the fire-control is the sensors which most likely is an external component. It would also be interesting of these external component had a greater chance of being hit by the new chock damage system, that could be interesting for ship design overall.

[Narmio]

Repairs/Maintenance is also something I have a hard time seeing automated to any AI, since we are talking about unpredictable failures.

I don't know about that, failure rates are just probability, and even current-day AI is pretty good at that (Markov Models, Bayesian NNs, Topic Modelling, etc). Human-in-the-loop systems with AI guidance are an active area of research - mostly under the umbrella of interactive analytics, but AI is AI whatever you call it. There's also the possibility that "automation" refers to tele-operated robotic arms, self-regulating systems, or whatever, rather than just AI.  Anything which reduces the number of humans required at the cost of more machinery is automation, after all.

One thing to keep in mind is that full automation would likely be a late-game tech.  Think of it something like fuel consumption multiplier, only for crew.  The design page of crewed component would have an "automation percentage", with 10-40% being relatively early game, 50-70% requiring significant investment, and 80%+ being very expensive in terms of RP. Because you'd be adding another tech with its own TL multiplier the cost of the components would increase accordingly. There would not necessarily need to be a 100% automation tech - you could perhaps say that a skeleton crew of meatbags is always needed.

To play devil's advocate, though, I'm not sure exactly how much strategic choice this system would allow, though.  You could significantly decrease the amount of crew space required for crew-intensive systems on long-deployment ships, but it would come at a corresponding increase in the amount of engineering spaces required (as the components would be more expensive and thus require more supplies to fix, IIRC). Other than for RP reasons (I'd feel a lot better throwing beam fighters at an opponent if they were unpiloted!), or for reducing burden on your military academies, what would automation be good for?

[LizardSF (OP)]

To clarify: I was proposing that "Reduced Crew" or "Automation" be a single tech, probably researched in 10% increments up to maybe 50%, then "Full Automation", with it coming in to play only when units are designed. Thus, I can design a normal engine, as currently done, and there's a drop-down which has "Crew Reduction". Even simpler (but since when has Aurora been about simple?) it could be a function of class design: When you design a class, include a "reduced crew" setting as one of the many fields to fill in. It could even be a checkbox: If set, the crew is reduced by the currently researched automation tech. (So, if you're at "Automation 20%", and you check the box, all crew requirements are reduced 20% across the board.)

I think this would have utility for long-term deployment, esp. explorers and scouts. From an RP perspective, I feel sorry for the crews stuck on my sorium harvesters and asteroid miners. My Valdez-class sorium harvesters have crews of 322, and man, that's got to be the most boring duty imaginable.

There may be other benefits to partial automation, such as improved training speeds (fewer people to train, smaller work units that mesh more quickly, plus adaptive systems that learn the crew's habits and self-modify to accommodate them). OTOH, as others note, there could be increased risk of failure in combat from mesons and microwaves, as well as the possibility of hacking automated systems via ECM (ala the new Galactica).

Ultimately, it's just another dial to play with, and let's part of what makes Aurora fun.

[Paul M]

The wiki states the following:

"The High Power Microwave is not affected by armour but it is affected by shields. However, because of the HPMs effectiveness against shields and electronic systems, the single point of damage from the HPM causes three points of damage to shields."
"Once the shields are down, the High Power Microwave only damages systems classed as "Electronic". This currently includes sensors, fire control systems, ECM and ECCM."

Don't you consider integrated ship AI as a big part of "electronic systems"? I do.

I don't think Fire controls are external. They are computers located in the middle of the ship just like AI would.

The targeting dish/emmitter dish is outside the hull for every one of those systems classified as electronic currently, last I checked fire control systems for missiles had "antenna size."  Every system in the ship uses electronics, inclusive of every weapon system but you can only kill sensors and ECM/ECCM (which likely are connected to the sensors anyway) with microwaves.  Beam Fire Controls are the one system that doesn't specifically have an antenna and I have no idea if you can kill them with microwaves.  Theoretically you should not be able to as all they are is a balistic targetting computer system that is telling your beam system where to point.  But on the other hand nothing says they don't have sensors on the hull that could be overloaded by getting hit with the microwave beam.

You also can't cook the crew which tells you instantly that the microwaves are not penetrating the hull.  So your AI is safe, just like your crew is safe.

[Shipright]

A digital based AI would be far more succeptable to microwaves than a human. In fact all delicate electronics would be. So just because you crew isn't killed, let alone killed instantly, doesn't mean microwaves are not or can't penetrate the hull. Furthermore some electronics are by their very nature more resistant to Microwaves or harder to harden against them.

It's not all that important, it's not like the game's particle cannons take Bremsstrahlung (see blow, scroll to particle beams) which would be FAR more damaging to human crew members than microwaves.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php

[Paul M]

Do you know how far into metal a microwave penetrates?  Look up skin depth and tell me that a ship with half a meter thick hull armour is going to be worrying about microwaves anytime soon.  The AI and any other electronics are safe from the mircowaves until long after the crew is cooked.  Also there is electronics in every other system on the ship but the microwave weapons only affect those which are basically exterior to the hull (sensors and fire controls).

[alex_brunius]

The targeting dish/emmitter dish is outside the hull for every one of those systems classified as electronic currently

If that is your entire argument, then how come the armor is currently protecting all these systems fully from all other kinds of damage?

I don't agree with you, and I do think that it would fit the game style and consistency that a weapon kind that only targets electronic systems also can target AI systems.

I think mesons are far more unrealistic tbh, how can any weapon go right through all kinds of shielding, armor, do no damage to crew but specifically hit internal systems that are made from the same kind of material that the armor is?

There's also the possibility that "automation" refers to tele-operated robotic arms, self-regulating systems, or whatever, rather than just AI.  Anything which reduces the number of humans required at the cost of more machinery is automation, after all.

Yes but remember what we are comparing it to here. Which task do you think is harder to develop an AI to do, repairing a unknown and random failure, or normal operation of an engine/missile launcher?

My point was not that It couldn't be done, but that replacing the human engineering/maintenance is one of the last areas the AI and Automation would find itself into. After all someone needs to be left repairing the robots too, right?

[Paul M]

If that is your entire argument, then how come the armor is currently protecting all these systems fully from all other kinds of damage?

I don't agree with you, and I do think that it would fit the game style and consistency that a weapon kind that only targets electronic systems also can target AI systems.

I think mesons are far more unrealistic tbh, how can any weapon go right through all kinds of shielding, armor, do no damage to crew but specifically hit internal systems that are made from the same kind of material that the armor is?

Because that is the way game works?  I don't know why Steve did what he did.  But there is no way a microwave beam penetrates even mm of metal, as I said to the other person look up "skin depth."  At the end of the day the difference between a maser and laser in effect is negligable.  If I hit your ship with a maser I'd bore a hole through exactly like I would with a laser.  Since the weapon doesn't affect the hull armour it is not a maser but a high power microwave beam (which in another context would be called a cm band radar) and that isn't doing anything more than frying your antenna electronics and rendering you blind and deaf.

As for the justification of the meson gun...it is shakey but look up proton therepy or meson therepy or heavy ion therepy they all work on the principle of the range-energy equations and allow you to deposite the bulk of the energy deep into the body rather than on the surface.  That is what the "meson cannon" is using as a principle.  It isn't completely correct but it isn't completely incorrect.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'm sure that Steve just did not want a damage model that was too complex, that is why sensor system is "behind" the armour. In reality they would be external to the armour. Putting them on the inside would be kind of pointless in a realistic point of view.

I don't see how system such as engines could really be behind armour, weapons also have to somehow be external or at least part of them need to be. The armour model in the game are just "simplified".