Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 30, 2009, 11:31:05 AM
Do I:
1) Leave things as they are and accept that players will have to provide warships to protect civilian shipping against alien raiders.
2) Remove the transponders for civilians and let players start worrying about every thermal contact and presumably start building local patrol ships to check them out.
3) Give the player a general Empire wide command for civilians to start/stop using transponders (with a delay of perhaps 5 days to avoid this being switched on and off at will)
4) Add some type of intelligence to civilians to disengage transponders if an unknown contact is detected in the same system. If a transponder is off, a civilian would then check each new system it entered and if no contacts where known, it would switch the transponder back on.
5) Add a command for the player to tell all civilians not to use transponders in certain systems.
Any opinions or alternative suggestions welcome.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on January 30, 2009, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
At the moment all civilian ships have a transponder that displays their position and it is always active. With the addition of NPRs this presents the player with a dilemma. NPR scouts and survey ships will spot those freighters, colony ships, etc. if they are in the same system and either attack or summon assistance. On the other hand, if civilian ships didn't have transponders, you would only be able to detect them when they were in sensor range and you wouldn't know if a thermal contact was a civilian ship or an alien invader. I am interested in opinions on how to handle this.
Do I:
1) Leave things as they are and accept that players will have to provide warships to protect civilian shipping against alien raiders.
2) Remove the transponders for civilians and let players start worrying about every thermal contact and presumably start building local patrol ships to check them out.
3) Give the player a general Empire wide command for civilians to start/stop using transponders (with a delay of perhaps 5 days to avoid this being switched on and off at will)
4) Add some type of intelligence to civilians to disengage transponders if an unknown contact is detected in the same system. If a transponder is off, a civilian would then check each new system it entered and if no contacts where known, it would switch the transponder back on.
5) Add a command for the player to tell all civilians not to use transponders in certain systems.
Any opinions or alternative suggestions welcome.
Steve
My order of preference would be: 4, 5, 3, 1, 2
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 30, 2009, 12:04:38 PM
Post by: Cassaralla on January 30, 2009, 01:31:39 PM
Post by: sloanjh on January 30, 2009, 07:52:34 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
My order of preference would be: 4, 5, 3, 1, 2
ditto, with the addition that I think 4, 5, and 3 make sense together. With 4, I assume transponders would shutdown for hostile contacts as well
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 30, 2009, 07:55:47 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Same for me as wellQuote from: "Erik Luken"
My order of preference would be: 4, 5, 3, 1, 2
ditto, with the addition that I think 4, 5, and 3 make sense together. With 4, I assume transponders would shutdown for hostile contacts as well
Brian
Post by: Erik L on January 30, 2009, 08:49:31 PM
Post by: welchbloke on January 31, 2009, 08:41:30 AM
As an alternative you could use modern military aircraft IFF as a model. Military IFF can be encrypted and only responds if interrogated by a signal with the appropriate crypto; this would, of course, be a big change. Also details like maximum distance for interrogation etc would need to be determined.
Post by: Erik L on January 31, 2009, 03:09:43 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
I agree with 4,5,3 and I also agree that allowing for all options would be the ideal.
As an alternative you could use modern military aircraft IFF as a model. Military IFF can be encrypted and only responds if interrogated by a signal with the appropriate crypto; this would, of course, be a big change. Also details like maximum distance for interrogation etc would need to be determined.
That would be an idea for military/government ships. But what about civilian shipping? Those would tend to be not encrypted.
Maybe change the way IFF works. Have IFF respond to an active sensor ping. If the ship is pinged by an active sensor, the IFF flashes the identity instead of having an always on situation.
Post by: welchbloke on January 31, 2009, 03:27:40 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
True about the lack of encryption for civilian ships; however, it's not beyond the realms of possibility for them to have a lower level of encryption than the military grade. The response to a sensor ping would be a more 'realistic' method.Quote from: "welchbloke"I agree with 4,5,3 and I also agree that allowing for all options would be the ideal.
As an alternative you could use modern military aircraft IFF as a model. Military IFF can be encrypted and only responds if interrogated by a signal with the appropriate crypto; this would, of course, be a big change. Also details like maximum distance for interrogation etc would need to be determined.
That would be an idea for military/government ships. But what about civilian shipping? Those would tend to be not encrypted.
Maybe change the way IFF works. Have IFF respond to an active sensor ping. If the ship is pinged by an active sensor, the IFF flashes the identity instead of having an always on situation.
Post by: Erik L on January 31, 2009, 04:03:56 PM
It'd be quite fun to suck a NPR into thinking he's going to hit a freighter when it's not. Of course, the reverse would be available to the NPRs also.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 01, 2009, 07:28:31 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
One thing that would be interesting, is if you could set your IFF to a false reading. I.E. have that 9000 ton cruiser broadcast IFF as a freighter.You can do that already. Check out the dropdown for the transponder on the Misc tab of the ship window.
It'd be quite fun to suck a NPR into thinking he's going to hit a freighter when it's not. Of course, the reverse would be available to the NPRs also.
Steve
Post by: IanD on February 01, 2009, 04:12:11 PM
Quote
Erik Luken wrote:
welchbloke wrote:
I agree with 4,5,3 and I also agree that allowing for all options would be the ideal.
As an alternative you could use modern military aircraft IFF as a model. Military IFF can be encrypted and only responds if interrogated by a signal with the appropriate crypto; this would, of course, be a big change. Also details like maximum distance for interrogation etc would need to be determined.
I like this, but would also like to see welchbloke's idea of
Quote
Have IFF respond to an active sensor ping. If the ship is pinged by an active sensor, the IFF flashes the identity instead of having an always on situation.This enables a defender to make sure the contact approaching him is not a colony ship but a hostile contact.
Under 4 would a civilian ship recognise another civilian ship as an unknown contact? If it would there would have to be some way of allowing all your Nation's civilian ships to recognise each others transponder signals.
Regards
Ian
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 04:25:00 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
As an alternative you could use modern military aircraft IFF as a model. Military IFF can be encrypted and only responds if interrogated by a signal with the appropriate crypto; this would, of course, be a big change. Also details like maximum distance for interrogation etc would need to be determined.
This would be my preference. You can read a summary of modern IFF on the ever useful Wikipedia.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifica ... end_or_Foe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_Friend_or_Foe)
And by the time we can build ships such as those in Aurora, you can bet we'll have more more advanced and secure systems. While one can postulate pretty much anything in a science fiction setting involving alien races etc., it is hard to envision that such a future system could be spoofed by an enemy (outside of bad fiction that is).
Post by: welchbloke on February 02, 2009, 05:52:20 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "welchbloke"As an alternative you could use modern military aircraft IFF as a model. Military IFF can be encrypted and only responds if interrogated by a signal with the appropriate crypto; this would, of course, be a big change. Also details like maximum distance for interrogation etc would need to be determined.
This would be my preference. You can read a summary of modern IFF on the ever useful Wikipedia.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifica ... end_or_Foe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_Friend_or_Foe)
And by the time we can build ships such as those in Aurora, you can bet we'll have more more advanced and secure systems. While one can postulate pretty much anything in a science fiction setting involving alien races etc., it is hard to envision that such a future system could be spoofed by an enemy (outside of bad fiction that is).
The issue would not be the technology, rather how 'realistic' you would want things to get. The management of the encryption loads would be a real world problem in this scenario. If every civilian ship had an encrypted IFF transponder all it would take is the loss of a single ship to enemy action to cause the change of crypto for every ship in the empire (unless you can confirm the ship was lost and the enemy definately did not get the crypto). In this case the time delay for a large empire is significant and could lead to ships being misidentified as hostile.
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 06:27:27 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
The issue would not be the technology, rather how 'realistic' you would want things to get. The management of the encryption loads would be a real world problem in this scenario. If every civilian ship had an encrypted IFF transponder all it would take is the loss of a single ship to enemy action to cause the change of crypto for every ship in the empire (unless you can confirm the ship was lost and the enemy definately did not get the crypto). In this case the time delay for a large empire is significant and could lead to ships being misidentified as hostile.
Each ship gets unique one time codes, reloaded automatically every time they enter port. And/Or each gets a unique key they encrypt their codes with. We already deal with much more complex situations in the real world. I'm sure people in the future will be even more clever.
Post by: welchbloke on February 02, 2009, 07:33:08 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "welchbloke"The issue would not be the technology, rather how 'realistic' you would want things to get. The management of the encryption loads would be a real world problem in this scenario. If every civilian ship had an encrypted IFF transponder all it would take is the loss of a single ship to enemy action to cause the change of crypto for every ship in the empire (unless you can confirm the ship was lost and the enemy definately did not get the crypto). In this case the time delay for a large empire is significant and could lead to ships being misidentified as hostile.
Each ship gets unique one time codes, reloaded automatically every time they enter port. And/Or each gets a unique key they encrypt their codes with. We already deal with much more complex situations in the real world. I'm sure people in the future will be even more clever.
I have a fair degree of experience with crypto/IFF and the above situation is not a technology problem it's an information management issue. In order to know that the IFF is correct you have to know that the returning signal meets the criteria you were expecting; therefore, you have to know the encryption method and key. This means that all users have to have the same database of codes/keys. One-time pads only really work for a single pair of correspondents. Once the database is compromised all codes/keys in that database will be assumed to have been made public. The military reduce the vulnerability by ensuring that crypto is physically very secure and by limiting the lifetime of each set of codes/keys. Just before the current set expires the new set is issued. So if a database is lost the data will only be useful to the enemy for a limited time. If the crypto is compromised everyone dumps the old crypto and loads a rapidly issued new set. When you start talking about a multi-system empire the rapid reissue of crypto becomes a logistical nightmare. The more I think about it the more I think that the most playable solution is to allow the civilian ships to 'run silent' when ordered.
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 07:58:19 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
I have a fair degree of experience with crypto/IFF and the above situation is not a technology problem it's an information management issue. In order to know that the IFF is correct you have to know that the returning signal meets the criteria you were expecting; therefore, you have to know the encryption method and key. This means that all users have to have the same database of codes/keys. One-time pads only really work for a single pair of correspondents. Once the database is compromised all codes/keys in that database will be assumed to have been made public. The military reduce the vulnerability by ensuring that crypto is physically very secure and by limiting the lifetime of each set of codes/keys. Just before the current set expires the new set is issued. So if a database is lost the data will only be useful to the enemy for a limited time. If the crypto is compromised everyone dumps the old crypto and loads a rapidly issued new set. When you start talking about a multi-system empire the rapid reissue of crypto becomes a logistical nightmare. The more I think about it the more I think that the most playable solution is to allow the civilian ships to 'run silent' when ordered.
If you have a fair degree of experience then you are probably aware the U.S. military alone has hundreds if not thousands of crypto devices and we have no problem keeping them organized. It stands to reason that a star spanning empire will have much greater organizational resources in addition to superior technology. And if there is one problem that technology can solve, it is information management. All users do not need to have all of the codes/keys. They only need the subset that applies to them.
For that matter, in the games of Aurora I've read about so far the number of ships is a tiny fraction of present day military ships. They might be star spanning empires, but they are tiny compared to real world numbers and tonnage. A couple clerks with notebooks and pencils could keep track of where everything is at any given moment for the Aurora empires I've read about so far.
We can imagine the future however we like, but outside of some dystopian future I would find it very hard to believe that we are going to regress in these areas.
Post by: welchbloke on February 02, 2009, 08:26:55 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "welchbloke"I have a fair degree of experience with crypto/IFF and the above situation is not a technology problem it's an information management issue. In order to know that the IFF is correct you have to know that the returning signal meets the criteria you were expecting; therefore, you have to know the encryption method and key. This means that all users have to have the same database of codes/keys. One-time pads only really work for a single pair of correspondents. Once the database is compromised all codes/keys in that database will be assumed to have been made public. The military reduce the vulnerability by ensuring that crypto is physically very secure and by limiting the lifetime of each set of codes/keys. Just before the current set expires the new set is issued. So if a database is lost the data will only be useful to the enemy for a limited time. If the crypto is compromised everyone dumps the old crypto and loads a rapidly issued new set. When you start talking about a multi-system empire the rapid reissue of crypto becomes a logistical nightmare. The more I think about it the more I think that the most playable solution is to allow the civilian ships to 'run silent' when ordered.
If you have a fair degree of experience then you are probably aware the U.S. military alone has hundreds if not thousands of crypto devices and we have no problem keeping them organized. It stands to reason that a star spanning empire will have much greater organizational resources in addition to superior technology. And if there is one problem that technology can solve, it is information management. All users do not need to have all of the codes/keys. They only need the subset that applies to them.
For that matter, in the games of Aurora I've read about so far the number of ships is a tiny fraction of present day military ships. They might be star spanning empires, but they are tiny compared to real world numbers and tonnage. A couple clerks with notebooks and pencils could keep track of where everything is at any given moment for the Aurora empires I've read about so far.
We can imagine the future however we like, but outside of some dystopian future I would find it very hard to believe that we are going to regress in these areas.
I agree with you as far as the future technological development is concerned. I'm not going to go any further with the crypto discussion except to say that in my experience keeping track of crypto(UK/US or other) and keeping them all filled and organised appropriately is not as simple or error free as you are implying. As far as the subset of codes/keys is concerned, for Aurora the subset is all ships from a particular empire otherwise ships will appear to be hostile to vessels of their own side. I was more concenred about the implications of trying to rekey all crypto in a multi-system empire when limited by speed of light communications.
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 08:44:53 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
I agree with you as far as the future technological development is concerned. I'm not going to go any further with the crypto discussion except to say that in my experience keeping track of crypto(UK/US or other) and keeping them all filled and organised appropriately is not as simple or error free as you are implying. As far as the subset of codes/keys is concerned, for Aurora the subset is all ships from a particular empire otherwise ships will appear to be hostile to vessels of their own side. I was more concenred about the implications of trying to rekey all crypto in a multi-system empire when limited by speed of light communications.
The only thing I want to add is that barring someone actually boarding a ship and taking it intact and being able to overcome all the locks etc., being able to interrogate a ship to find out who it is is trivial with even basic concepts and not spoofable. I don't really think boarding would work either, but at least it isn't totally unbelievable, just nearly so.
Post by: Randy on February 03, 2009, 12:58:30 PM
This is more in line with the way things would be done - either on all the time or off in a risk area.
Of course, there should also be some penalty to a system that has been ordered to have IFF turned off, perhaps add a short delay (6-12 hours) to the time required to unload a ship running in IFF silent mode. This because the receiving space port can't anticipate the ships arrival and prepare to minimize load/unload time.
Post by: vergeraiders on February 06, 2009, 11:06:36 AM
There should also be a way to commendeer the ship (by matching course and speed with an armed ship seems to be enough).
There should also be the potential for repurcussions, like no new civilian ports/ships/ships of that class/trips to that system etc.
Post by: ShadoCat on February 07, 2009, 12:03:36 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
My order of preference would be: 4, 5, 3, 1, 2
ditto, with the addition that I think 4, 5, and 3 make sense together. With 4, I assume transponders would shutdown for hostile contacts as well
This one gets my vote as well.
Post by: SteveAlt on February 07, 2009, 02:57:27 PM
As for civilians turning off transponders as a result of hostile contacts in the same system, it occurred to me after making the original post that civilians probably wouldn't know if there were contacts in the system or not. They would have to rely on the military to tell them, which makes it effectively the same as the military telling them to turn off transponders.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 07, 2009, 08:04:13 PM
I am coding for 'civilian' NPR ships such as freighters or colony ships to run away from unknown contacts. I hadn't intended it but as soon as the code was up and running, the player race civilian ships started doing the same. My frst reaction was to prevent the code applying to player race civilians but when I thought about it a little more, I guess it probably should apply. In that way, the Player Race (PR) civilian ships that players can't control will at least have a sense of self-preservation. They will recognise each other by their transponder codes and not run away under those circumstances. However, it then occurred to me that if two PR civilian ships are in a system where transponders are turned off and sensors can only pick them up as thermal contacts, they will run away from each other with possible comedic results. This does seem realistic though and is a major downside of having civilians turn off their transponders.
Comments?
Steve
Post by: schroeam on February 07, 2009, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Another interesting question has just popped up in this area.
I am coding for 'civilian' NPR ships such as freighters or colony ships to run away from unknown contacts. I hadn't intended it but as soon as the code was up and running, the player race civilian ships started doing the same. My frst reaction was to prevent the code applying to player race civilians but when I thought about it a little more, I guess it probably should apply. In that way, the Player Race (PR) civilian ships that players can't control will at least have a sense of self-preservation. They will recognise each other by their transponder codes and not run away under those circumstances. However, it then occurred to me that if two PR civilian ships are in a system where transponders are turned off and sensors can only pick them up as thermal contacts, they will run away from each other with possible comedic results. This does seem realistic though and is a major downside of having civilians turn off their transponders.
Comments?
Steve
This sounds plausible, however, what would prevent the civvies from querying the other ships for their identity? At least this way they wouldn't necessarily just abandon their mission, but throw in some randomness as to whether the ship's trust each other, or if the other ship even responds.
Adam.
Post by: SteveAlt on February 07, 2009, 08:39:29 PM
Quote from: "adradjool"
This sounds plausible, however, what would prevent the civvies from querying the other ships for their identity? At least this way they wouldn't necessarily just abandon their mission, but throw in some randomness as to whether the ship's trust each other, or if the other ship even responds.If they query the contact though and it turns out to be an alien, they have just given their own position away so civilian captains probably wouldn't want to do that.
Steve
Post by: schroeam on February 07, 2009, 11:49:18 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
If they query the contact though and it turns out to be an alien, they have just given their own position away so civilian captains probably wouldn't want to do that.
Steve
Wouldn't the civilian ship's position already be known by the aliens by the time they saw said aliens?
Adam.
Post by: SteveAlt on February 08, 2009, 08:38:36 AM
Quote from: "adradjool"
Not necessarily. A more likely scenario is that a planet or a warship spots the thermal contact and the civilian happens to be in the same system. If the warship, planet or civilian ship queries the contact, then that query would give away their position. I am not saying that querying is a bad idea, it might be something I could add to the game, but it would have a downside.Quote from: "SteveAlt"If they query the contact though and it turns out to be an alien, they have just given their own position away so civilian captains probably wouldn't want to do that.Wouldn't the civilian ship's position already be known by the aliens by the time they saw said aliens?
Steve
Post by: Erik L on February 08, 2009, 11:38:21 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "adradjool"Not necessarily. A more likely scenario is that a planet or a warship spots the thermal contact and the civilian happens to be in the same system. If the warship, planet or civilian ship queries the contact, then that query would give away their position. I am not saying that querying is a bad idea, it might be something I could add to the game, but it would have a downside.Quote from: "SteveAlt"If they query the contact though and it turns out to be an alien, they have just given their own position away so civilian captains probably wouldn't want to do that.Wouldn't the civilian ship's position already be known by the aliens by the time they saw said aliens?
Steve
Maybe make it an order. And a conditional.
Post by: waresky on February 08, 2009, 03:25:03 PM
Interesting situation born with "true" Aliens NPR:)
Post by: welchbloke on February 08, 2009, 05:48:57 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I like the idea of being able to query. Of course, there would be a downside to consider, but that seems to be part of the central premise to AuroraQuote from: "SteveAlt"*SNIP*
Not necessarily. A more likely scenario is that a planet or a warship spots the thermal contact and the civilian happens to be in the same system. If the warship, planet or civilian ship queries the contact, then that query would give away their position. I am not saying that querying is a bad idea, it might be something I could add to the game, but it would have a downside.
Steve
Maybe make it an order. And a conditional.
Post by: ShadoCat on February 09, 2009, 01:49:57 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
...I am coding for 'civilian' NPR ships such as freighters or colony ships to run away from unknown contacts. I hadn't intended it but as soon as the code was up and running, the player race civilian ships started doing the same....
Comments?
Steve
This is a very workable solution (and seems realistic to me).
Post by: jfelten on February 09, 2009, 05:01:27 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Another interesting question has just popped up in this area.
I am coding for 'civilian' NPR ships such as freighters or colony ships to run away from unknown contacts. I hadn't intended it but as soon as the code was up and running, the player race civilian ships started doing the same. My first reaction was to prevent the code applying to player race civilians but when I thought about it a little more, I guess it probably should apply. In that way, the Player Race (PR) civilian ships that players can't control will at least have a sense of self-preservation. They will recognize each other by their transponder codes and not run away under those circumstances. However, it then occurred to me that if two PR civilian ships are in a system where transponders are turned off and sensors can only pick them up as thermal contacts, they will run away from each other with possible comedic results. This does seem realistic though and is a major downside of having civilians turn off their transponders.
Comments?
Steve
Since (I assume) most civilian ships do not include sensors, how would they see the aliens?
Post by: Father Tim on February 09, 2009, 07:05:09 AM
Post by: jfelten on February 09, 2009, 07:31:22 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
All ships include sensors - a half-space thermal if nothing else.
Do you mean in Steve's campaign specifically or that all ships have an innate thermal sensor ability?
Post by: Father Tim on February 09, 2009, 09:23:21 AM
Post by: jfelten on February 09, 2009, 10:16:50 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
All ships have an inherent thermal sensor, equivalent to a half-space sensor.
Interesting. I didn't know that. Are they automatically "upgraded" when thermal sensor technology progresses?
Post by: Father Tim on February 10, 2009, 01:11:49 AM
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 02:13:02 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
All ships include sensors - a half-space thermal if nothing else.As of v4.0 (and I think v3.2 as well) ships have an inherent strength-1 thermal sensor and a strength-1 EM sensor. These inherent sensors are ignored if the ship has a more powerful sensor of the same type. To check the sensor ratings, look at the Sensors section on line two of the class summary. It will look similar to Sensors 1/1/0/0. These show the sensor ratings for thermal / EM / Grav / Geo
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on February 10, 2009, 02:22:57 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
The tone of your posts today seem to imply that you are close to releasing V4.0 Steve; or am I suffering from wishful thinking?Quote from: "Father Tim"All ships include sensors - a half-space thermal if nothing else.As of v4.0 (and I think v3.2 as well) ships have an inherent strength-1 thermal sensor and a strength-1 EM sensor. These inherent sensors are ignored if the ship has a more powerful sensor of the same type. To check the sensor ratings, look at the Sensors section on line two of the class summary. It will look similar to Sensors 1/1/0/0. These show the sensor ratings for thermal / EM / Grav / Geo
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 10:18:29 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
The tone of your posts today seem to imply that you are close to releasing V4.0 Steve; or am I suffering from wishful thinking?I am getting there but I wouldn't expect anything for perhaps a week or two. As well as my own campaign, my son is running a test campaign and a friend ran through the start of another campaign tonight. That is helping flush out the bugs but there are still some more abilities I want to add to NPRs before I release v4.0.
Steve
Post by: waresky on February 11, 2009, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Father Tim"All ships include sensors - a half-space thermal if nothing else.As of v4.0 (and I think v3.2 as well) ships have an inherent strength-1 thermal sensor and a strength-1 EM sensor. These inherent sensors are ignored if the ship has a more powerful sensor of the same type. To check the sensor ratings, look at the Sensors section on line two of the class summary. It will look similar to Sensors 1/1/0/0. These show the sensor ratings for thermal / EM / Grav / Geo
Steve
Steve,do u remember why the Terran early Confederation began the First interstellar War toward Vilani?:DDD because an Trade Vilani Convoy not answer on Solomani Traffic Control..:D Mar W miller...
Post by: rmcrowe on February 11, 2009, 04:58:13 PM
robert
Post by: Michael Sandy on February 19, 2009, 01:07:37 AM
You would basically fire the missile at the same time as you cut off your ship transponder, cut emissions etc... and changed course.
Post by: Erik L on February 19, 2009, 04:01:21 PM
Quote from: "Michael Sandy"
Would it be possible to build a decoy transponder into a missile?
You would basically fire the missile at the same time as you cut off your ship transponder, cut emissions etc... and changed course.
Passives would probably still pick you up if you are close enough... Though having a decoy "warhead" which simulates EM, Thermal and IFF would be nice.
Post by: SteveAlt on February 19, 2009, 06:27:01 PM
Quote from: "Michael Sandy"
Would it be possible to build a decoy transponder into a missile?I am going to be upgrading electronic warfare in the one of the updates after version 4.0. Something along these lines would probably make a good addition at that point.
You would basically fire the missile at the same time as you cut off your ship transponder, cut emissions etc... and changed course.
Steve