Island Hopping vs. Deep Strike

[Texashawk]

This. I really think this is a KEY question for the entire concept of NA, and must be resolved with some combinatorial degree of scientific fidelity and strategy that makes the idea of 'fronts' valid. Without fronts, of any sort, there is little effective strategy to validate conflict.

This concept HAS to be gotten right, IMO, to make a game like this work. As long as it takes.

Just a small comment on the direction this thread has gone....

The whole island hopping vs. deep strike issue is not quite the same as "how far can I jump in a single jump".  It's "as a defender, is there a reasonable way for me to set up a defence perimeter that will allow me to intercept an enemy fleet before it reaches a target deep in my sphere of influence?"  To me, this either means choke points or some sort of supply/maintenance-based "penetration depth".  On the choke point front, the more "chokiness" (i.e. the fewer number of approach options available to the invader) the better  My concern is that, with a simple single-jump range limitation, there won't be enough chokiness because there's a LOT of stars out there than can be used as waypoints.  On the penetration depth front, this essentially means that there has to be a mechanism to limit the distance a fleet can travel away from their base before they have to turn around and come back to refuel, resupply, or refit.

From what I've seen in this thread, I think there is a story here that fits together - I just don't remember seeing it explicitly stated.  I think the underlying assumption with people focusing on the shortening the jump range is: "Jumping to a star, then changing course to jump to the next star costs fuel".  Interestingly enough, the fuel cost should increase as the magnitude of the course change increases.  So an invading force hopping on a more or less direct path would have a much deeper penetration depth than one trying to evade enemy emplacements by jumping to stars well away from the direct path.  Also, penetration depth would be inversely proportional to speed in this case (and total strike time inversely proportional to speed squared) since deltaV (and hence fuel usage) is proportional to speed.

This still leaves another question:  "Is is possible for a defence force which is positioned in a waypoint system to interdict an attack force that's using that system as a waypoint?".  The thing I wonder about here is if it's possible for a defending fleet to hit an enemy thats tearing through the system.

John

[Aldaris]

Actually, from that description we're probably fairly close. There is already the issue that jumping scatters your fleet, so each waypoint will involve first gathering your fleet, adjusting course and velocity, and jumping again. Combine this with the limitations put in place by fuel use and the proposed difficulties with long-range jumps and you will be able to extrapolate the course of a fleet encountered far out. This allows for interception if given enough forward warning. Conversely, it will also be possible to sneak around in hostile space unnoticed, but only with exceedingly good intelligence and enormous fuel expenses. Of course, this will require fine tuning and more thought, but the basic trade-offs and possibilities seem to be there already. The main issue to be resolved to fix the basic puzzle is the mechanism of detection.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

This. I really think this is a KEY question for the entire concept of NA, and must be resolved with some combinatorial degree of scientific fidelity and strategy that makes the idea of 'fronts' valid. Without fronts, of any sort, there is little effective strategy to validate conflict.

That's not true.  Global thermonuclear war // massive deepstrike is nuts, but there is effective strategy.   Namely massive force concentration because of the unlikelihood of interdiction.  It might make for either extremely short cataclysmic wars, or it might make for very long wars of raid and counter raid by navies too paranoid to leave the capital uncovered enough to make a massive strike.   It might even result in wars with no winners, when two main fleets pass eachother and nuke eachothers capital. There is also the war of information.  The side that discovers the other homesystem first has a massive advantage.

Then there are the prewar strategic considerations of establishing multiple industrial and population centers so that instant decapitation is impossible.

[procyon]

Then there are the prewar strategic considerations of establishing multiple industrial and population centers so that instant decapitation is impossible.

I am not familiar with current Aurora, but by the looks of it I would say that creating multiple industrial and population centers will be a Herculean feat in this game.  It will take massive amounts of resources to do and a great deal of time.  While this is realistic, it is probably unlikely in a game simulation that will be playable.  I could be wrong on this.

But I do agree this tactic will be of major importance in any conflict. If there is no way for an 'extra-solar' colony to impede an attack, there is no point in having one unless the profit outwieghs the cost.  Mines - yes as you will need to exploit resources.  Populations with defenses - no as they will be a liability.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

There might not be such a thing as a defensive liability if defense is practically impossible to begin with.

Establishing other population centers is difficult, but hardly impossible. Steve has posted multiple AARs where he moves the entire population of a faction (and associated industry) to another star system. Though to be fair, NA will have a lower, uh, economic multiplier.

TBH, the main reason for homeworld centralization is simply ease of management. All your minerals flow to one point.  Maintaining secondary industry centers is difficult to manage unless they have their own complete (every mineral) input chains.  Establishing mining colonies and secondary shipyards is actually pretty straightforward.

[procyon]

There might not be such a thing as a defensive liability if defense is practically impossible to begin with.

So true.  And very eloquently put.

Establishing other population centers is difficult, but hardly impossible. Steve has posted multiple AARs where he moves the entire population of a faction (and associated industry) to another star system. Though to be fair, NA will have a lower, uh, economic multiplier.

TBH, the main reason for homeworld centralization is simply ease of management. All your minerals flow to one point.  Maintaining secondary industry centers is difficult to manage unless they have their own complete (every mineral) input chains.  Establishing mining colonies and secondary shipyards is actually pretty straightforward.

Love Steve's fiction  (and miss it also... ).  Moving it would be possible, creating a new one... well, probably not in the span of a normal game.  The mining colonies I see as a good thing.  If you split up your population to different worlds, I just see that as more chances for an enemy to find one and cripple your ability to strike back.

You would also need to spread out your defensive forces which would leave all of your populations more vulnerable.

So I am not sure I see the multiple population centers happening unless something was different.  But I will wait to see how the game plays out and reserve the right to change my mind...

[Mel Vixen]

Maybe the population growth could be revisited? It would also be nice if that is in relation to surface area of a world, the habitability and remoteness. A good colony with lots of space to grow food will grow much faster and bigger over a long time when say a colony on a small titan like moon because its easy to sustain people and the crowd can disperse further.
The remoteness of a world could influence how many new settlers land in the spaceports which should be some kind of bell-curve on a axis between "very remote" and "right next to earth".

Heck Humans can propagate like Bunnies in the right circumstances so i can see a world quadrupling its population every couple of years. Just look how we did it in the last century. In 1900 we had ~ 1.5 Billion and are now by over 7 and reaching 8 In the next 8 Years if the worst estimates holdup.

edit: some spelling

[UnLimiTeD]

The point is that the reproduction rate goes down dramatically if wealth and education is present, and most people settling somewhere else by means of large spaceships will probably have one or the other.
And a perfectly habitable world is extremely unlikely; an Oxygen Atmosphere for example is a dead giveaway for plants on that planet, which might mean problems with an existing biosphere, or for the lack of water and natural resources that could react with free oxygen; As such, the very most planets will require some sort of infrastructure.

Agreed on these factors, though.

[Mel Vixen]

Right thats another thing. I have now 3 waterworlds thus worlds with 100% ocean with col-cost factor of 0. While Oceanworlds are nice (well for one you can do 3D farming and transportation is effecient) you cant just plop down 100K people, you need some sort of Base-infrastructure that allows you to produce buildingmaterial for swimming cities say filtering out magnesia from the water which can be made to blocks or some sort Carbonfiber and epoxy production.

Gardenworlds are iffy yes, i guess one could torch an area and plant plants from earth (resp. you could use greenhouses) or you somehow extract the needed vitamins, starch and sugars from local plants by industrial means. Since starch ans sugar are rather easy molecules the probability of them existing in xeno plants should be quite high.

[ollobrains]

Maybe the population growth could be revisited? It would also be nice if that is in relation to surface area of a world, the habitability and remoteness. A good colony with lots of space to grow food will grow much faster and bigger over a long time when say a colony on a small titan like moon because its easy to sustain people and the crowd can disperse further.
The remoteness of a world could influence how many new settlers land in the spaceports which should be some kind of bell-curve on a axis between "very remote" and "right next to earth".

Heck Humans can propagate like Bunnies in the right circumstances so i can see a world quadrupling its population every couple of years. Just look how we did it in the last century. In 1900 we had ~ 1.5 Billion and are now by over 7 and reaching 8 In the next 8 Years if the worst estimates holdup.

edit: some spelling

I think this could be one of the factors and cloning technology combined with AI technology could lead to pretty rapid population gains, of course needing supplies and the right conditions and materials to work it would be the other side of the coin

[Arwyn]

Throw in the possibility of greatly extended human lifespans and those numbers go up even faster, since you aren't losing as much population to age related illness either.

When you look at the general life expectancy numbers, and extrapolate, you can retain an awful lot of people. Unless, of course, they are eating themselves to death and dying from morbid obesity like where I live....

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, if you go that way, you should also factor in pollution, overcrowding, logistics, and unemployment, and the unrest and running costs rising from all of those.

[ollobrains]

Well, if you go that way, you should also factor in pollution, overcrowding, logistics, and unemployment, and the unrest and running costs rising from all of those.

pollution from industrial activities versus clean up factors, logistics relating to supply chains and civilian transports mass drivers etc, unemployment well u have to keep the bees busy.  Maintence and political unrest factor in aswell are we missing anything

[Mel Vixen]

^^ hey if you are a socialist minded government universal Wellfare (guarantied minimum income, free Healthcare, subsided housing) could keep the unrest low for a substantial fraction of your income.

[PTTG]

Let's step back for a minute here before we go over the internet political discussion cliff.

Here's a system, if we really want to make planet management a bigger concern:

Have a "civilian manufacturing" side of the manufacturing group. That side slowly adapts to give exactly as many jobs as there is excess population.

There is also a "reinvestment" slider. This represents money spent to regulate the economy or paid back in subsidies. The higher this value is, the faster the Civ manufacturing segment grows and shrinks to match demand.