Tactical Intelligence changes

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

Tactical Intelligence

This is being posted in a new suggestions topic instead of under a version thread do to the scope of changes involved.  

In older versions we would get internal data on ships scanned by active sensors fairly freely.  (Engines, launchers, reactors, etc etc etc)  We were getting way too much data for very little effort.  This first lead to active scans being a hostile act and ultimately a significant cut back on the tactical intelligence data collected.  With the cut back, if my memory is correct, tactical intelligence was limited to data that has an existing “signature” (engine thermal, sensor em, shield em, hull cross section, etc) and any additional data that can be calculated from those signatures (speed being the main one).

My proposal is to expand the concept of signatures.  Beam fire, missile launches, small craft launches, etc should have some form of a signature that can be applied to the tactical intelligence database, provided that you have a ship with an appropriate sensor within range to record said signature.  Not all beams should have the same signature base.  Lasers could have both thermal and em while microwaves might only have em.  

An additional item could be the seperation of activating fire control from active sensor activation.  Search and fire control should be able to be identified by signature type.

These signatures could then be associated with a specific hull type to differentiate classes.  When first detected hulls that have the same base signatures would be lumped into the same class until such time as they display different characteristics.  (i.e. 2 hulls that are 10k ton with the same engine thermal would list as the same class until they show different shield em, weapons signature, sensor signature, etc)  Perhaps a race level screen to set rules for defining when the tactical intel screen should reassign ships detected to different classes.

Pro:  
•   Realistic tactical intelligence gathering
•   Provides data for refining the AI’s target assignments
•   Still provides a functional level of “fog of war”

Con:
•   Significant  database and programming change
•   Huge potential for heavy CPU usage

I suspect the last con I've listed to be a killer for this proposal.

[jocan2003]

Sound good to me and add a toggle so those with small CPU can play without that.

[welchbloke]

Definately worth exploring, it would be nice to expand TacInt if possible.

[Steve Walmsley]

I like the principle and it would make things more realistic. My initial concern is over how to display the information. If your sensor data suggests a new contact could be one of three known classes or might be a previously unknown class, how do I convey that to the player on the map. At the moment, it is a simple existing ship or new ship and it used to be known ship or passive signature only. With multiple possibilities, including previously unknown, it becomes more complex not just in identification terms but in information display.

Steve

[jocan2003]

While your there, i find it weird that when you salvage a wrekc and say you salvage 6 torpedo launcher well the class doesnt update the technology scanned or whatever in the tactical inteligence. I mean If you salvage a Size 24 Torp or even multiple unit of them, you wont get the *evidence of torpedo launcher bla blah )

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

I like the principle and it would make things more realistic. My initial concern is over how to display the information. If your sensor data suggests a new contact could be one of three known classes or might be a previously unknown class, how do I convey that to the player on the map. At the moment, it is a simple existing ship or new ship and it used to be known ship or passive signature only. With multiple possibilities, including previously unknown, it becomes more complex not just in identification terms but in information display.

Steve

That's a Con I had not considered that I should have.  How to communicate the data analysis to the user.  

Some of the answer lies in how detailed the signatures are defined.  Will drive signatures, weapon signatures, etc always have a racially identifiable component or will they be common?  (ie thermal contact strength X...consistant with race Z)  Or... do they require time or some other support level reference to identify the owning race?  

As I look at this there are at a minimum of 2 new tables that would be needed, 1 to define signatures and 1 to store current contacts that are not hard identified.  

Once the data storage is defined then it's how to report it to the user.  That's always the tough part because no 2 users are going to find the same level of detail useful.  (I know...preaching to the choir.  Just thinking out loud so to speak)  

It's probably simplier to start with drive signatures are always race specific vs generic and the additional scan detail refines the owner.  (ie thermal scan sees a strength X signature and Race Z is know and that that stength is known to be used in 3 of their warship classes)  

Sorry about the rambling.  Just got back from a SciFi Convention and partyed quite a bit.  

[sloanjh]

Sorry about the rambling.  Just got back from a SciFi Convention and partyed quite a bit.  

Which one?  Liberty's not for another month....

John

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

Sorry about the rambling.  Just got back from a SciFi Convention and partyed quite a bit.  

Which one?  Liberty's not for another month....

John

I wish I could make LibertyCon.  Conquest41 in Kansas City.  Conquest is every Memorial Day weekend.  The last 2 years it's been at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.