Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on Yesterday at 05:37:37 PM

I think that detection could be less binary and more uncertain as they are in reality thus if there are more ships you are more likely to detect something and even identify some of them but you will never be able to know for sure how many there are unless you manages to follow them for a longer time. It also means that more sensors means more chances to make positive contact too.

So contact should be in three states, something detected but you are not entirely sure what it is or even exactly where it is. You have a firm sensor indicator but you don't know anything more than that something is there and lastly you have a firm lock and managed to identify the source.

Sensors should need more than just detecting something and not be binary... in my opinion it would be more fun.

I don't think that more ships should be easier to detect but it will be more likely that you detect something and further out the more ships that are there. It also would remove the need to spreading them out and micro things.

I also think the game would benefit with more sensor mechanics in terms of stealth, detection and identification. More electronic warfare and possibility to spoof sensors and trick them. Why not be able to trick them to thinking there is a ship when it is just a decoy for example, sending the enemy out on a wild ghost chase for example.

I do think that the game would be more fun if sensors were not binary and there were ways to mask ships, say around planets and asteroids for example.

Sure... it would make "combat" in general more spread out in a system perhaps, but generally I would have no big problem with that. It also would mean that a better sensor are not guaranteed to find something before a worse one, just more likely to do so.

The calculation does not have to be more complicated than now, just a few more states before something is fully identified. Even a passive sensors detection should be able to eventually determine with a very high certainty what enemy design it is, you can in real life as all emissions usually are very unique for each type of platform. I also think this would be a good way to make "Flag Bridges" more interesting... they could be made to influence the chance to fully identify sensor sources as they combine the information from en entire squadron or small task force of ships.

The game used to be like that in the early years. For example, you would have a thermal contact but no ID or even IFF, so you had to get closer and try to identify ship type and race (similar to Harpoon). However, while that is interesting for the first few contacts, it became very tedious after micromanaging investigation of a hundred such contacts. I changed sensor detection to the current model, which assumes target identification, or even target motion analysis, was handled by the your staff behind the scenes so you could get on with deciding how to handle it.

If I ever get around to a more tactical game than Aurora, it would definitely include something on these lines.

I think that detection could be less binary and more uncertain as they are in reality thus if there are more ships you are more likely to detect something and even identify some of them but you will never be able to know for sure how many there are unless you manages to follow them for a longer time. It also means that more sensors means more chances to make positive contact too.

So contact should be in three states, something detected but you are not entirely sure what it is or even exactly where it is. You have a firm sensor indicator but you don't know anything more than that something is there and lastly you have a firm lock and managed to identify the source.

Sensors should need more than just detecting something and not be binary... in my opinion it would be more fun.

I don't think that more ships should be easier to detect but it will be more likely that you detect something and further out the more ships that are there. It also would remove the need to spreading them out and micro things.

I also think the game would benefit with more sensor mechanics in terms of stealth, detection and identification. More electronic warfare and possibility to spoof sensors and trick them. Why not be able to trick them to thinking there is a ship when it is just a decoy for example, sending the enemy out on a wild ghost chase for example.

I do think that the game would be more fun if sensors were not binary and there were ways to mask ships, say around planets and asteroids for example.

Sure... it would make "combat" in general more spread out in a system perhaps, but generally I would have no big problem with that. It also would mean that a better sensor are not guaranteed to find something before a worse one, just more likely to do so.

The calculation does not have to be more complicated than now, just a few more states before something is fully identified. Even a passive sensors detection should be able to eventually determine with a very high certainty what enemy design it is, you can in real life as all emissions usually are very unique for each type of platform. I also think this would be a good way to make "Flag Bridges" more interesting... they could be made to influence the chance to fully identify sensor sources as they combine the information from en entire squadron or small task force of ships.

In space, not really, heck it only took the USN abut 6 months for the yarddogs to mothball status a couple of thousand ships, and just several years later they were able to reativate 540 for the Korea Conflict, these then when back into mothball status and then another 600+ were reactivated during Vietnam. 

Keep in mind, the last month or so of a ship's "active status" was spent by the crew readying it for the reserve, logging and fixing problems, using up and transporting perishables, and securing non-perishables, along with stripping paint and begin setting up dehumidifiers before they hit they yards.