Author Topic: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 62446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #450 on: May 28, 2023, 08:42:29 AM »
Awesome to see the new leaky point defense working. It might take some fiddling to get the balance right but I think it'll be a great addition.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #451 on: May 28, 2023, 08:58:17 AM »
Each individual AMM is assigned to an individual inbound missile - salvos sizes are no longer a factor.

Steve is clearly trying to kill us all with happiness so we will shut up and leave him alone.  ;D ;D ;D
 

Offline db48x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • d
  • Posts: 641
  • Thanked: 200 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #452 on: May 28, 2023, 08:26:53 PM »
Very cool, but should it always reveal how many decoys there were like that?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #453 on: May 29, 2023, 04:51:00 AM »
Very cool, but should it always reveal how many decoys there were like that?

Its only the decoys that were hit, not the total decoys.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #454 on: May 29, 2023, 07:56:31 AM »
Awesome to see the new leaky point defense working. It might take some fiddling to get the balance right but I think it'll be a great addition.

I've run the attack a few times to fix bugs, etc. There are 100 missiles attacking a precursor AMM base and a PD base. The attacking force can generate ten salvos of that size (40% reduction launchers). On each attempt, the target base has been hit, varying from 2 to 10 impacts. Before the changes, 100 missiles with a speed of 22,500 would not get anywhere near the target.

The later AMMs and the final PD are more effective because those inbound missiles that survive have been stripped of some of their decoys. It's certainly more interesting to watch.

However, the precursor bases have not yet used their anti-missile decoys because I set the threshold too high. I'll update once that is a factor.
 
The following users thanked this post: Laurence, Bremen, BAGrimm

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #455 on: May 29, 2023, 08:11:44 AM »
This is a quick look from the attacking side, after the first AMM interception (this is a new run through).

There are twenty visible detonations, which are from warheads not missiles. Five ASMs have been destroyed, which means that fifteen decoys were also hit. However, the total number of decoys has been reduced by thirty, because some intact decoys were lost when their parent missile was destroyed.

By looking at the remaining missiles and decoys in the salvos that were attacked, you can also tell the surviving missiles lost ten of their decoys to AMMs.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2023, 08:14:11 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline captainwolfer

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • c
  • Posts: 224
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #456 on: May 29, 2023, 04:48:48 PM »
How well do the missiles do against an opponent of the same tech level and tonnage?
 

Offline db48x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • d
  • Posts: 641
  • Thanked: 200 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #457 on: May 29, 2023, 04:56:28 PM »
Very cool, but should it always reveal how many decoys there were like that?

Its only the decoys that were hit, not the total decoys.

Allow me to rephrase. Isn’t it the idea that the defender cannot distinguish the decoys from the real thing? Then the defender should see incoming salvos of “Size 12 ×20” instead of “Size 12 ×4”, and instead of seeing “12× … attacked Salvo ID3140 … Missiles Hit 0 Missiles Destroyed 0 Decoys Destroyed 7” they should see “12× … attacked Salvo ID3140 … Missiles Hit 7 Missiles Destroyed 7”.

(Granted that the information about decoys vs missiles is probably invaluable during development of the feature!)
 

Offline nakorkren

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • n
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 194 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #458 on: May 29, 2023, 05:04:14 PM »
db48x, I can see that being more realistic. From a gameplay perspective challenge is that under that approach the only indication you would get that the enemy is using decoys is you having a lower than expected hit frequency, which would be pretty nuanced to figure out and could be quite frustrating if you couldn't figure it out. Probably better to give some feedback even if it's not entirely realistic.

For handwavium, you could always argue that the BFC/MFC can always figure out what happened (wrt which targets were real vs decoys) AFTER the fact, just not consistently real-time.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #459 on: May 29, 2023, 06:31:31 PM »
How well do the missiles do against an opponent of the same tech level and tonnage?

That would very much depend on the design of the ships of the two races. In this case, the attackers are lower tech, but have a 5-1 tonnage advantage. However, a third of that tonnage is AMM escorts and energy escorts, which are not directly involved, and the ships launching missiles are hybrid energy/missile combatants (see example below), so only a portion of their tonnage is effective. Conversely, the bases they are attacking are designed purely for anti-missile defence.

Royal Sovereign class Battleship      28,125 tons       764 Crew       4,135.8 BP       TCS 562    TH 1,800    EM 0
3200 km/s      Armour 8-82       Shields 0-0       HTK 163      Sensors 6/24/0/0      DCR 20-7      PPV 156.8
Maint Life 2.22 Years     MSP 1,838    AFR 316%    IFR 4.4%    1YR 504    5YR 7,564    Max Repair 300 MSP
Magazine 963 / 0   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Parsons PN-600 Triple Expansion Gas-Core Drive (3)    Power 1800    Fuel Use 28.58%    Signature 600    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 817,000 Litres    Range 18.3 billion km (66 days at full power)

Twin 8-inch Ultraviolet Laser Turret (4x2)    Range 256,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Power 20-7     RM 40,000 km    ROF 15       
Twin 5-inch QF Ultraviolet Laser Turret (4x2)    Range 160,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Power 8-8     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
4-inch QF Railgun  (8x4)    Range 20,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5       
Barr and Stroud MK I Primary Laser Fire Control  (2)     Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 8,000 km/s    ECCM-1     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Barr and Stroud MK I Railgun Fire Control  (2)     Max Range: 80,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s    ECCM-1     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
R-21 Gaseous Fission Reactor (4)     Total Power Output 85.2    Exp 5%

Armstrong Whitworth AW-12 Missile Launcher (8)     Missile Size: 12    Rate of Fire 695
Maxwell MF-60 Missile Fire Control (2)     Range 63m km    Resolution 120   ECCM-1
Perseus Anti-Ship Missile (80)    Speed: 22,500 km/s    End: 29.7m     Range: 40.1m km    WH: 9    Size: 12    TH: 75/45/22

Maxwell MX-6M Missile Detection Sensor  (1)     GPS 16     Range 6.4m km    MCR 574.5k km    Resolution 1
Maxwell MX-80 Active Search Sensor  (1)     GPS 13440     Range 83.3m km    Resolution 120
Rutherford RT-6 Thermal Sensor  (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km
Rutherford RE-24 EM Sensor  (1)     Sensitivity 24     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  38.7m km
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #460 on: May 29, 2023, 06:43:40 PM »
Very cool, but should it always reveal how many decoys there were like that?

Its only the decoys that were hit, not the total decoys.

Allow me to rephrase. Isn’t it the idea that the defender cannot distinguish the decoys from the real thing? Then the defender should see incoming salvos of “Size 12 ×20” instead of “Size 12 ×4”, and instead of seeing “12× … attacked Salvo ID3140 … Missiles Hit 0 Missiles Destroyed 0 Decoys Destroyed 7” they should see “12× … attacked Salvo ID3140 … Missiles Hit 7 Missiles Destroyed 7”.

(Granted that the information about decoys vs missiles is probably invaluable during development of the feature!)

The defender sees the missiles but not the decoys. However, any AMM that detonates without a missile being destroyed is assumed to have hit a decoy, so you can get any idea over time of how many decoys you are facing.

If the defender saw the total decoys plus missiles as a single total, that would initially cause havoc with AMM targeting with the defenders unable to generate enough AMMs to cover all the missiles/decoys, but the defender would eventually work out the right number of AMMs with which to target each type of enemy missile. However, that would involve a huge amount of micromanagement, so its a lot easier to hand wave that part and tell the player how many missiles they are facing. There is probably still some adjustment for AMMs numbers per missiles, but nothing like the chaos if every decoy was assigned multiple AMMs.
 
The following users thanked this post: Bremen, BAGrimm, nuclearslurpee

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #461 on: May 30, 2023, 03:03:24 AM »
Another factor I should have mentioned here is that the two Precursor bases, one armed with AMM and the other with energy PD, are each 29,000 tons, which is about double 'normal size', so this attack should probably be seen as equivalent to attacking four bases in a v2.1.1 game. This is because the AI has more varied design options in v2.2.

Num-Toorum class Missile Defence Base      29,068 tons       653 Crew       4,248.8 BP       TCS 581    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 7-84       Shields 0-0       HTK 142      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 12-4      PPV 122
Maint Life 0.20 Years     MSP 1,096    AFR 563%    IFR 7.8%    1YR 5,392    5YR 80,885    Max Repair 1634.6 MSP
Magazine 5,532 / 222   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Size 37 Decoy Launcher (6)     Decoy Size: 37    Hangar Reload 304 minutes    MF Reload 50 hours
Size 2 Missile Launcher (61)     Missile Size: 2    Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC16-R1 (13)     Range 16.4m km    Resolution 1   ECCM-2
La Tablada Ship Decoy (6)    Signature: 7400 tons    ECM-2    Size: 37
Bahía Blanca AMM (2766)    Speed: 60,300 km/s    End: 0.5m     Range: 1.9m km    WH: 2.002    Size: 2    TH: 201/120/60

Active Search Sensor AS14-R1 (1)     GPS 80     Range 14.2m km    MCR 1.3m km    Resolution 1

Electronic Warfare Jammers:   Sensor 2    Fire Control 2    Missile 2   
 
The following users thanked this post: Bremen, Garfunkel, lumporr

Offline AlStar

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 175
  • Thanked: 125 times
  • Flag Maker Flag Maker : For creating Flags for Aurora
    Race Maker Race Maker : Creating race images
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #462 on: May 30, 2023, 09:37:44 AM »
Almost 3,000 AMMs? Not going to run that out of ammunition anytime soon.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #463 on: May 30, 2023, 09:39:50 AM »
Almost 3,000 AMMs? Not going to run that out of ammunition anytime soon.

That'd be pretty terrifying to try to close to beam range against, too. Those bases are always a pain.
 
The following users thanked this post: LiquidGold2

Offline ReviewDude01

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 22
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #464 on: June 12, 2023, 11:44:35 AM »
Thread for discussion of changes announced for v2.2.0. Please do not post bug reports or unrelated suggestions in this thread.

About new missile Decoys and ECM and planned fragmentation warheads.

New ECM mechanics are way to go. It is brilliant.
I suggested flak with hit chance to all missiles in group and shipboard decoys that would give % - percent chance to "dodge" icoming missiles for 1 or several time increments. Usable once or more. In another post several years ago.

So here are more suggestion cause this is IMO what is needed to bring this game to nearly perfect state:

1. Keep old missile ECM mechanics while adding the new missile decoy mechanic. Its player choice then.

2. Fire "Smoke - sensor disruption cause muzzle fire" Area. Too many ships firing their defensive - Point Defence guns in same time increment in same squad lowers hit chance. This gives a reason to split fleet balance-wise.

This chance should be A per gun fired per barrel in 5. sec.    SquareRoot (A *3,2)  Hard Capped at 40% multiplicative reduction from original hit chance.
A = number of barrels in gun fired.

Hit chance = Hit chance * Math.Max (  0.6f ,   1.0f  -   Math.Sqrt (A * 3.2f) * 0.01f  )

3. Same mechanics can be applied when guns are firing at hostile ships.

Tip: Use lookup table since Square Roots tent to use relatively large amounts of processor compared to other calculations.


4. Increase EM, Heat, and Active sensor signature when there are more than 1 ship in same place - I mean squad.
Same formula as 2,3 capped at 75%
A = number of Ships , in case of Heat with active engine

Sensor Profile = Sensor Profile * Math.Min (  1.75f ,   1.0f  +   Math.Sqrt (A * 22.5f) * 0.01f  )

Reason: lone ships are harder to detect than multiple suspicious DOTS on radar moving together. Always. Size of detection profile is not important.



5. Engine boost for a limited time. Usable once per maintenance cycle.   so Military ships with fuel efficient engines and fast engines - fast only for 1-2 minutes when boosted. And fuel guzzling.  I leave formula to your imagination. Think about afterburner. Missiles do not need this since they can be multi - staged.
AI would have 2 options. Use on retreat and use to close distance and attack. - beam ships.
Button can be added near raise shields - engine boost.

This implementation is easier than implementing multiple possible types of engines turnable on/off IMO.


6. rename beam fire control to direct fire control. I wrote this at least 4 times.


7. make 1 squadron size ship jump drives more feasible. Think about Star Trek ships.

8. leaky shields. I tested this in my mod Djas extended or whatewer was the name for Space Empires 5.
Its a great thing.

Formula: - example:

If   (  (remaining shield Power /    3 )  < incoming damage)
 then {   remaining shield Power Acts as - is blocking only
is blocking only   =  1f   *    (remaining shield Power /3)  / incoming damage
remaining shield Power Acts as =  Math.RoundedUp ( remaining shield Power Acts as *  is blocking only )
while rest of damage is going to armor
} else {
do normal stuff
}

You can obviously replace number 3 with global constant variable


9. Launching parasites - fighters should have delay. If its not implemented already. Representing carrier group forming up.

Do missiles need active sensor lock? If I launch missiles or mines with thermal sensor only will they hit a target?

10. If these suggestions are too unrelated Im sorry I should post this to suggestions then.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2023, 11:55:39 AM by ReviewDude01 »