Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)

[Barkhorn]

How does one "unburn" something?

Barring unique things that can't be recreated, like works of art or relics, you just remake it.

A better comparison is a bridge.  Sure, if a bridge collapses I might not be able to put it back together; some pieces would have been pulverized, others lost.  But I certainly can just build another one in its place.  Who cares if it's the same exact bridge if the new one works just as well?

Further, we're going the other direction.  "unburning" something is more like building the jump gate than destroying it.  "Unburning" is going from less ordered to more ordered.  Building a jump gate or stabilizing a jump point is going from less ordered to more ordered.  Knocking a jump gate down or destabilizing a jump point would be going from more ordered to less ordered.

[Steve Walmsley]

There are a few reasons for the current situation

1) As noted above, originally there was a requirement for about five cargo holds' worth of components to build a jump gate. It was generally agreed that this was tedious and unnecessary micromanagement.

2) Building a gate should be a consequential decision, rather than automatic. Currently, if you build one, you have to accept the downside that aliens can also use it. If you can easily remove it, there isn't really a downside to building it

3) Equally, if an alien jump ship starts building a gate in a location that could cause you problems, you have another consequential decision. Destroy it and start a war, or accept the risk. If you can just remove it, there isn't a significant decision.

4) It can be a significant undertaking to build a gate you need in the face of hostile aliens (especially in their home system). If you can just move in a ship and have an instant jump gate for all traffic, that makes life too easy.

5) Having 'jump gates' that can be absent due to players moving them or through enemy action is going to play havoc with path finding, civilians and the NPR AI.

6) I just finishing designing an AI race that only uses jump gates

[Hazard (OP)]

Making gates take a long time to build and logistically expensive would already cover most of the 'consequentiality' problem. Even if destruction is easy, that's only good if you are the defender or if you want to lock down escape options as an attacker, because your non-jump capable logistics just went dead unless you rush a sufficiently large jump ship in place. You can also greatly decrease logistical complexity by not making it require specific 'jump gate components' and instead make it use a more abstracted material you'll be hauling around anyway, like MSP.

Finally, you can already do the whole 'instant gate' for jump travel thing with a sufficiently large jump engine shoved into an armoured brick and hauled around by a massive thug. It's an end tier tech if you want to actually use it, but it's possible.

[Steve Walmsley]

I've built mobile jump gates myself in my last campaign and they are something that races can already choose to use. In C#, you can even tell ships using automated path finding to expect such ships to be in place. I just don't want them to replace the existing jump gate mechanics.

[sloanjh]

I've built mobile jump gates myself in my last campaign and they are something that races can already choose to use. In C#, you can even tell ships using automated path finding to expect such ships to be in place. I just don't want them to replace the existing jump gate mechanics.

Have you thought about ways to reduce/eliminate the "NPR jump point spam" issue, especially for conventional starts?  From my point of view that's the only big downside with the current mechanism if you like it.  I have a vague recollection that you said you're limiting the NPRs to not spamming the jump gates; if so that solves the issue from my point of view.

Thanks,
John

[Zincat]

Have you thought about ways to reduce/eliminate the "NPR jump point spam" issue, especially for conventional starts?  From my point of view that's the only big downside with the current mechanism if you like it.  I have a vague recollection that you said you're limiting the NPRs to not spamming the jump gates; if so that solves the issue from my point of view.

Thanks,
John

Agreed. That's my main problem as well. When playing conventional start, I might end up in a situation where NPRs gate out the entire neighborhood, and I obviously can't do anything about it.

Of course it is one of the downsides of playing conventional start. But still Steve, the points you listed above do become a problem if they morph to:
Reach the stars and find that EVERYTHING is connected by jump gates.

If it can be limited or such, I'm fine with it.

[Hazard (OP)]

Given how much easier jump gates are compared to jump stations? That's not a problem Steve. With a jump gate all you need is a jump gate constructor and queue up the jump points. Jump stations need constant management unless you decide to just build a dozen of them, and it constrains your max ship size unless you rework the network.

[Person012345]

Barring unique things that can't be recreated, like works of art or relics, you just remake it.

That has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand, but ok.

[Barkhorn]

That has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand, but ok.

Yes, it does.  Someone implied that destroying and remaking jump gates should not both be possible by asking how you "unburn" something.  My point is that you don't, you just make another one.  Who cares if it's not the same exact jump gate if the new one works just as well?

[Steve Walmsley]

Have you thought about ways to reduce/eliminate the "NPR jump point spam" issue, especially for conventional starts?  From my point of view that's the only big downside with the current mechanism if you like it.  I have a vague recollection that you said you're limiting the NPRs to not spamming the jump gates; if so that solves the issue from my point of view.

Thanks,
John

NPRs will be quite different in C# Aurora. I'll post more details in the rules sections, but they will now have varied fleet design themes (they will now design a coordinated fleet in the same way as a player, not a bunch of individual designs) and different motivations. For example, they will class some systems as their own and some as neutral. You will be able to tell them which systems you claim and believe are neutral. Jump gates may be restricted to their own systems, or they may not build any jump gates at all, depending on their theme.

[Person012345]

Yes, it does.  Someone implied that destroying and remaking jump gates should not both be possible by asking how you "unburn" something.  My point is that you don't, you just make another one.  Who cares if it's not the same exact jump gate if the new one works just as well?

No. The point was that if we can do a process, we can undo it. Specifically it was in reference to the idea that "jumpgates" represent stabilised wormholes. So "building a new one" isn't applicable. You could make a new unstabilised wormhole, perhaps, but that doesn't get rid of the old one. The analogy was that just because we can burn something (stabilise the wormhole)  doesn't mean we can reverse the process and unburn it (destabilise it again). So talking about "making a new one" is not only missing the point of reversing the process, your whole argument is in the wrong direction and you're suggesting rebuilding something that was never destroyed within the hypothetical.

[Seolferwulf]

To "unburn" something you first make a snapshot of an object.
Meaning you record the position of every atom composing it (maybe something like a 3D topology map).
After burning the object you collect all the dispersed particles and reassemble it again, using the previously made record.
You'd probably want to use nanomachines for this task, because you ain't gonna be happy doing this by hand.
Done.
Easy enough, right?

The point being as long as you understand a process you can - with sufficiently developed technology backing you - undo it.
And this is slowly going off topic.

[captain_carrot]

I get the feeling that what people are asking for as far as temporary jump gates is something that's doable in current aurora, and to a greater extent in C#.   C# aurora will already have armorless space stations that have a variety of uses (refuleing, maintenance, etc), is anything stopping you from slapping a jump engine on that bad boy and calling it a jump gate?  It will have to be able to jump to its position anyway.

I think there's room for both styles in Aurora.   producing a stable jump point with a construction ship (with some text changes to better describe the concept of a stable jump point vs.  the ambiguous jump gate that people seem to be picturing incorrectly) has use in that there's no maintenance involved, no size restrictions, etc.

If you can build a space station (and the corresponding jump engine required) using construction facilities, that also means you don't have to worry about having a huge shipyard to handle it, then tow it to its destination (like every other deep space station).

I don't know if its possible, but can you include both a military and commercial jump drive on a ship? If not, I think it should.   

And if your opponent has a jump station on a point, why not send in Our Valiant Marine Corps to capture the facility and make use of it for our navy?

I just think people are latching onto the words "Jump Gate" too hard as a physical construct rather than metaphysical TN technobabble.

Correct me if I got any of that wrong, but I'm under the impression that this is all already possible.

Edit: If people are super set on the idea of destroying stable jump points, maybe it can be some kind of very late game, hyper expensive, one use "Space Time Destabilization Vortex Bomb," That basically is the equivalent of detonating a fusion bomb directly in the fluid dimension, with prohibitive costs and unintended consequences that make it a last resort option rather than as a standard practice when encountering alien Jump gates.  Maybe the jump point closes for 5 years?  Either way.

[Hazard (OP)]

I get the feeling that what people are asking for as far as temporary jump gates is something that's doable in current aurora, and to a greater extent in C#.   C# aurora will already have armorless space stations that have a variety of uses (refuleing, maintenance, etc), is anything stopping you from slapping a jump engine on that bad boy and calling it a jump gate?  It will have to be able to jump to its position anyway.

Mass is stopping you from doing so.

The jump ship can't move more mass per ship than it weighs itself, which means that even if your jump gate ship is using the lowest mass efficiency jump drive possible to open a gate and it doesn't have extra mass to fill in capacity you essentially are using a jump gate at half of its mass capacity. And IIRC military drives start at a multiplier of 3, so for military ships that's 1/3rd of the capacity the ship has.

[captain_carrot]

Mass is stopping you from doing so.

The jump ship can't move more mass per ship than it weighs itself, which means that even if your jump gate ship is using the lowest mass efficiency jump drive possible to open a gate and it doesn't have extra mass to fill in capacity you essentially are using a jump gate at half of its mass capacity. And IIRC military drives start at a multiplier of 3, so for military ships that's 1/3rd of the capacity the ship has.

The fatal flaw in my plan 
And I guess throwing 20 cargo holds on it to get the weight up probably isn't going to satisfy anyone...