1
Recent Posts
2
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 09:15:48 AM »I asked ChatGPT for some suggestions, and it had a few reasonable ones:
False signal emitter
Countermeasure decoy
Anti-missile decoy
Missile bait
Defensive countermeasure
Defensive countermeasure drone
Interceptor decoy
AI taking my
Anti-missile decoy makes sense to me.
3
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Destragon on Today at 06:01:30 AM »I think missile decoy is better because to my understanding it doesn't actually do anything against any other kind of weapon system, unlike other kinds of decoys."Missile Decoy" is the name currently used for the decoys that are launched by missiles, which do work against all weapon systems.
"Anti-missile Decoy" is okay for the ship-launched decoys, though I personally might just call them "flare" colloquially anyway, even if it's not perfectly accurate, cause it's short and gets the point across.
4
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 04:42:44 AM »I asked ChatGPT for some suggestions, and it had a few reasonable ones:
False signal emitter
Countermeasure decoy
Anti-missile decoy
Missile bait
Defensive countermeasure
Defensive countermeasure drone
Interceptor decoy
Good idea.
I quite like Anti-missile Decoy.
5
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by mike2R on Today at 03:38:31 AM »I asked ChatGPT for some suggestions, and it had a few reasonable ones:
False signal emitter
Countermeasure decoy
Anti-missile decoy
Missile bait
Defensive countermeasure
Defensive countermeasure drone
Interceptor decoy
False signal emitter
Countermeasure decoy
Anti-missile decoy
Missile bait
Defensive countermeasure
Defensive countermeasure drone
Interceptor decoy
6
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by QuakeIV on Today at 02:26:58 AM »I think missile decoy is better because to my understanding it doesn't actually do anything against any other kind of weapon system, unlike other kinds of decoys.
7
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Snoman314 on Today at 02:18:17 AM »I agree with the above posts that Decoy Missile is a confusing name for ship decoys. Flare or chaff is probably a more straightforward name for its purpose.
Those both do very different things though, neither of which is being described. Signal Decoy or Ship Decoy would both work.
The Nixie is close to what is being described, but it is a towed device, Tactical Air Launched Decoys are probably the closest, so perhaps just Tactical Decoy would work.
What's being described is kind of like a flare, really. Or at least I'm visualizing it as a device you chuck out into space that blasts out a huge signature to try to make it look like the ship for a few seconds and then burns out. A bit more complex than just being hot to attract heatseekers, sure, but the same general principle.
In the Starfleet Battles boardgame similar countermeasures were called Wild Weasels, but that's apparently different to the real world Wild Weasel.
My vote would be to just have a generic descriptive name, even if it ends up a bit long: Anti-missile defense decoy.
8
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Snoman314 on Today at 02:13:13 AM »Size and Cost has to be high in order to avoid making ASMs economically non-viable. The decoy will significantly reduce the effectiveness of mass missile strikes, but I didn't want it to be a general tactic that made missile warfare much less effective overall, especially given one of the objectives of the current update is to improve missile warfare. That said, I might reduce it a little depending on playtest and there is scope to reduce launcher size without changing decoy missile size.
Yeah OK, I see your point. So they're less like a chaff launcher, and more of a sophisticated, expensive decoy device for use in specific circumstances (large waves of missiles). I think I can get with that. The threshold mechanic to activate them makes more sense to me now. I'd still like the ability to upgrade them over time, but I guess the ECM tech will cover that.
I am somewhat worried. Other changes to missiles were made to make larger missiles viable, now these decoys makes them less viable.
I hope hope that all the changes together will lead to more balanced decision making on missile usage and will not just make them obsolete again.
As Steve just made me understand, these decoys will penalise massed strikes of small missiles more than repeated waves of larger, more capable missiles, rather than penalising all missiles equally. So I think it's fine.
9
C# Mechanics / Re: Finding a use for Formation Orders as-Programmed
« Last post by Exultant on Today at 12:14:19 AM »
Well, if you're not moving, why would you need to be in formation? Why not just move the scout ships to where you want them and toggle off anchor fleet until you're underway again?
I'm sorry, that really just rings of "Why not ignore the feature and just micromanage everything". I'm trying to set up a situation where I can keep my main fleet running dark, so I can lob fighters and missiles from long range without being detected. I am also taking advantage of Steve's changes to sensors in C#, which favor smaller sensors rather than larger ones.
If I have a set bearing and range for escort craft, then I want to have a picket ring a certain distance away. Why should that matter whether or not I'm moving? When I am stationary, I don't want to have to manually set 8-10 waypoints for each escort fleet, assign a move order for them to go there, then later on go back and delete them when I'm ready to move again.
It also prohibits taking advantage of the fact that formations will auto respond to a higher priority target when they have an anchor fleet set. For example, if I want my escort fleet with an active sensor to automatically position itself between my missile destroyers and a known target as soon as it appears on my passives, I have to have the fleets already in anchor mode. Using your method of manual waypoints, that further increases the micromanagement of setting the waypoints, than idling at set waypoints until hostiles appear, then manually delete waypoints and toggle on anchor modes again.
10
C# Mechanics / Re: Finding a use for Formation Orders as-Programmed
« Last post by lumporr on Yesterday at 11:42:51 PM »Help me determine if this is a bug or if it is working as intended, and if intended, how I might make effective use of it:
...
This is a crude workaround as it creates empty populations that need to be cleaned up after engagements.
Well, if you're not moving, why would you need to be in formation? Why not just move the scout ships to where you want them and toggle off anchor fleet until you're underway again? If you want to have them be in a certain direction from the carrier, you can use waypoints to direct them and then use the move-to with a minimum distance from the carrier (or just use the waypoints themselves and estimate with shift-click or something). I find mobile scouting with an arrowhead formation very useful, and lately I've also been using formations to position my carrier well behind the battle fleet (using the battle fleet as an anchor for the carrier and setting bearing to 180 degrees, so I can issue commands to the battle fleet and have the carrier follow along). Furthermore, I think formations will be more useful in the incoming patch - perhaps having your escorts some 20kkm in front puts them in range of hostile laser warheads, for instance.
EDIT: What if you just turned off anchor fleet when the anchor fleet arrived at its destination? Do the escorts stay in place?
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk