Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Paul M
« on: October 06, 2009, 04:53:49 AM »

Kurt, sorry for the delayed response I was in the USA on a conference and I perfer not to travel "wired" to a slaptop if I can avoid it so I've not been able to check in till now.  Glad to hear that real life is sorting itself out for you as that is much more important.  I would imagine that without detailed notes of what you were doing with 6 NPCs you would have a heck of a time even figuring out why the build queue was what it was.  I was forced into a couple of restarts and I'm not overly happy with my starting system but anyway I'll see what it brings...heck I may even write some of it up if it gets non-boring for others.
Posted by: Kurt
« on: September 23, 2009, 04:12:49 PM »

Quote from: "Exsellsior"
Quote from: "Paul M"
Kurt with all the changes for 4.2x have you shelved this game and are in the process of restarting or what is up?  Currently WitP AE is sucking down most of my spare time but I have noticed its been weeks since an update from you *epokes*


Sigh. Yes, if this keeps up I'll have to re-read the Rigellian Campaign.

Again.

Sorry guys.  Real life has been very stressful lately, and work has sucked up most of my time.  The special project I was working pretty much ended yesterday, and I am hoping to spend some time on the campaign soon.  It will be difficult to get back into it, as there was a lot going on, and I haven't worked on it in a long time.  

Kurt
Posted by: Exsellsior
« on: September 22, 2009, 05:42:59 AM »

Quote from: "Paul M"
Kurt with all the changes for 4.2x have you shelved this game and are in the process of restarting or what is up?  Currently WitP AE is sucking down most of my spare time but I have noticed its been weeks since an update from you *epokes*


Sigh. Yes, if this keeps up I'll have to re-read the Rigellian Campaign.

Again.
Posted by: Paul M
« on: August 19, 2009, 05:49:13 AM »

Kurt with all the changes for 4.2x have you shelved this game and are in the process of restarting or what is up?  Currently WitP AE is sucking down most of my spare time but I have noticed its been weeks since an update from you *epokes*
Posted by: Paul M
« on: July 03, 2009, 05:10:36 AM »

Thanks for the reply Kurt...40 deep space scanners is about a factor of 4 more then I have now.

The meson bug I had forgotten about which makes things more "interesting" in the end.  I agree with you the ability to fire at a waypoint is probably a hard drug to give up.  Realistically that is firing not a point in space but following a specificly programmed burn pattern, and as such not likely something you could easily alter.  Changing targets when using beam rider missiles is a lot easier then transmitting information to missile that doesn''t have any way to say "send again that last packet was corrupt."  I'm not sure...do modern missile have a self destruct capacity?  It would seem a dangerous thing to program into a missile.  Should the soviets cyber spies ever discover that...then they could shut down the reich in much the same way that the Cylons shut down the vipers in BSG at the start of the war.  If the reich had used the waypoint method they would get a substantial fraction of their firepower in one go.

Yes, most game models of combat tend to just feel wrong.  I feel that it is the tendancy for games to use ablative armour that produces this.  A friend once made rules of Battletech that used armour values and penetration of weapons and that resulted in a vastly more satisfying system.  He also changed the way Leviathan's weapons did penetration to be more like Interceptor and that also made that game much more interesting while still retaining ablative armour.  Still Starfire for all its warts allowed you to fight fairly large ship fleet battles before it became a record keeping nightmare.  I think the dropping of the use of crew points, although understandable as they were a pain to track, resulted in fleet bloat...and that eventually would kill a campaign.  The fleet bloat was inevitable and impossible to deal with due to the constantly increasing economy in the game, and your economy could only go upwards as no economic investment was not profitable all that was modified was the rate of return. 4th Edition just pushed the time when that started to happen further down the road, to a point past when Martin was interested in playing anyway.  I was one of the rare ones in the local group that didn't mind 4th E that much...though I thought the weapons were too balanced to be interesting if that statement makes sense...they had all the uniquness of gruel.
Posted by: Kurt
« on: July 02, 2009, 09:05:57 PM »

Quote from: "Paul M"
Good one Kurt,

A question...what is a lot of planetary sensors and what is their planetary sensor technology level?  I am asking because I have lvl 9 or so for the Draak and I'm not sure if I should go for more and if so how many more.

This sort of battle is one of the reasons I'm not all that fond of the "fire at waypoint" strategy.  The other thing it seriously illustrates is the difference between real life and game combat.  Fire at one target til it pops and then switch targets is almost never a valid real life naval model.  In a gunfire combat you never leave a ship unengaged as the effectiveness of an unengaged ship is significantly higher (for all sorts of obvious reasons).  In missile combat the actual calculations reflect more a desire to destroy as many targets as possible in the attack, the formula I could post up if your interested.  But it goes completely away form the "empire state formation" and "shoot on one till she pops" which dominate almost all space combat games I've ever played since starfleet battles years ago.   I actually recall being stunned when someone put all their counters in one hex and fired them all on one target but that is just because I tend to treat game combat as if it was real...hopefully that doesn't come across as daft as it looks.

The changes Steve is proposing for 4.1 look to fix this "overwhelming" salvo tactic.  Since in and of itself it seems to invalidate anything but missile as valid combat weapons and makes a mockery of close in point defence.  Though admittedly the Sino-Russian battles are a valid counterpoint to that.  But the Russians won due to the planetary launches from what I can see, and the fact the IJNs point defence was a mess.  If I was the Reich and the alliance I would be building a crap load of small meson bases and the next time anyone makes that sort of threat like the Russian's did I'd launch a joint meson attack and destory their launch bases.  The alliances orbital bases should be able to limit the launched missiles effectiveness...assuming the first strike doesn't eliminate all launchers anyway.

Anyhow, it was an enjoyable thanks for the effort Kurt.

The Novarans have Planetary Sensors tech level 550, and they had 40 Deep Space Tracking Systems.  They built a lot because they didn't want to have to station ships at all of their warp points, but they wanted to make sure that they detected any ships that jumped into their system.  

Your point about naval gunfire combat is one of the problems I had with Starfire, as it was typical to concentrate on one ship until it was crippled or destroyed, then move on to the next, and the next, and so on.  

I am becoming less enamored of the "firing at waypoint" strategy, as it makes so much sense that there is no reason not to do it, unless you don't have the endurance to do so.  As for the Sino-Russian battles, they were all in orbital space at point blank range, and thus not necessarily good examples.  In fact, in retrospect, both the Russians and the Japanese should have specialized their ships more for orbital combat, since they had no real hope of successfully engaging the Alliance or the Reich in deep space on a level playing field.  On the other hand, the way I visualized their stategy was something like the dreadnought "craze" prior to WW I, where second and third rank nations were buying dreadnoughts that they didn't need and couldn't afford for political/prestige reasons.  The Russians and the Japanese desperately wanted to be interstellar powers, and for that you need a deep-space navy.  

Both the Alliance and the Reich have been building meson bases (and the russians too for that matter) ever since the Africans nuked Europe.  Of course, none of them have been able to build as many as they would have liked, or had originally planned, but there are a lot of meson bases on Earth these days.  Still, the Reich in particular is going to be re-thinking its defense in light of the missile salvoes it was throwing at the Novarans.  I'm pretty sure that the Reich's Earth-based missile defense systems would have been able to handle similar salvo sizes, but saying the words "pretty-sure" in relation to the defenses that stand in between you and destruction means that they probably aren't good enough.  

Unfortunately, in Aurora v3.11 there is a bug that limits meson weaponry to anti-missile roles only.  Meson weapons cannot hurt anything else, and no other weapons will work through the Earth's atmosphere, so its either nukes or army divisions.  No one wants to detonate any more nukes on Earth, and to be sure of defeating the Russians both major nations would have to act in concert, but that's not likely to happen now that the Reich has attacked the Novarans.  The Alliance fears that the Reich has turned expansionist, something to fear given the Reich's birth in WW II (or the War of European Unification, as the Reich calls it).  

After all of the battles recently, the survivors are going to be doing quite a bit of post-combat evaluation.  It should be interesting.  

Kurt
Posted by: Paul M
« on: July 02, 2009, 02:45:15 AM »

Good one Kurt,

A question...what is a lot of planetary sensors and what is their planetary sensor technology level?  I am asking because I have lvl 9 or so for the Draak and I'm not sure if I should go for more and if so how many more.

This sort of battle is one of the reasons I'm not all that fond of the "fire at waypoint" strategy.  The other thing it seriously illustrates is the difference between real life and game combat.  Fire at one target til it pops and then switch targets is almost never a valid real life naval model.  In a gunfire combat you never leave a ship unengaged as the effectiveness of an unengaged ship is significantly higher (for all sorts of obvious reasons).  In missile combat the actual calculations reflect more a desire to destroy as many targets as possible in the attack, the formula I could post up if your interested.  But it goes completely away form the "empire state formation" and "shoot on one till she pops" which dominate almost all space combat games I've ever played since starfleet battles years ago.   I actually recall being stunned when someone put all their counters in one hex and fired them all on one target but that is just because I tend to treat game combat as if it was real...hopefully that doesn't come across as daft as it looks.

The changes Steve is proposing for 4.1 look to fix this "overwhelming" salvo tactic.  Since in and of itself it seems to invalidate anything but missile as valid combat weapons and makes a mockery of close in point defence.  Though admittedly the Sino-Russian battles are a valid counterpoint to that.  But the Russians won due to the planetary launches from what I can see, and the fact the IJNs point defence was a mess.  If I was the Reich and the alliance I would be building a crap load of small meson bases and the next time anyone makes that sort of threat like the Russian's did I'd launch a joint meson attack and destory their launch bases.  The alliances orbital bases should be able to limit the launched missiles effectiveness...assuming the first strike doesn't eliminate all launchers anyway.

Anyhow, it was an enjoyable thanks for the effort Kurt.
Posted by: Kurt
« on: July 01, 2009, 03:22:29 PM »

Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Kurt"
*SNIP*

Of course, this strategy is dependent on being able to detect the incoming missile wave as far away as possible (very good thermal sensors), and knowing what your to-hit percentage is going to be so that you can ensure that you launch enough missiles.  

Kurt
How are the Reich acheiving the long range thermal detection Kurt?  Good technology or large sensors?

The have several scouts along with the fleet.  IIRC, the scouts have 1,000 ton thermal sensors.  Maybe even larger.  They seemed to work pretty well.  

The Novarans had the benefit of planetary sensors, of which they had built a lot, and were routinely detecting incoming missiles 30-40 mkm's out.  

Kurt
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: July 01, 2009, 03:45:57 AM »

Ah!  I didn't realize it was to get more anti-missiles into space.  I was thinking of it as 'one wave of 3500' versus 'seventy waves of 50', and failing to see the point in the one big wave approach.
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: June 30, 2009, 02:28:43 PM »

Quote from: "Kurt"
*SNIP*

Of course, this strategy is dependent on being able to detect the incoming missile wave as far away as possible (very good thermal sensors), and knowing what your to-hit percentage is going to be so that you can ensure that you launch enough missiles.  

Kurt
How are the Reich acheiving the long range thermal detection Kurt?  Good technology or large sensors?
Posted by: Kurt
« on: June 30, 2009, 12:58:52 PM »

Quote from: "Father Tim"
I don't see the point in massing your anti-missile fire - there's no point defense for them to be concerned about.  Indeed, all it seems to do is waste missiles by overkill.

Well, it's all mathematics.  If the incoming attack missile wave is composed of 700 missiles (for example), and your anti-missile missiles have a to-hit chance of 20%, then you need 3,500 anti-missile missiles to destroy all of the incoming missiles, at least theoretically.  Now, if your fleet can launch 300 missiles every ten seconds, that means you need twelve launches and one hundred and twenty seconds to launch enough missiles.  Your engagement envelope is determined by the range of your anti-missile active sensors, and the associated fire control, and lets say for this exercise has a range of 1 million kilometers.  If the incoming missiles are moving at 25,000 kps, then they will cross the engagement envelope in 40 seconds, so you are only going to get four launches and a total of 1200 anti-missile missiles off, meaning that you are going to intercept only about 240 of the 700 incoming missiles.  

If, however, your passive sensors detect the incoming missiles while they are 10 million kilometers out, you now have 400 seconds, or time for 40 launches, more than enough to get your 3,500 anti-missile missiles off.  They can't engage at that range, because your fire control and active sensors only have a 1 million kilometer range, but if the anti-missile missiles have enough endurance you can let them loiter in front of the fleet until the attacking missiles enter range and then attack all at once to destroy the attacking missile wave short of the fleet.  

Of course, this strategy is dependent on being able to detect the incoming missile wave as far away as possible (very good thermal sensors), and knowing what your to-hit percentage is going to be so that you can ensure that you launch enough missiles.  

Kurt
Posted by: Kurt
« on: June 30, 2009, 12:47:06 PM »

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Great write up!

Fascinating tactic using the anti-missile mass attack. I realise that the ability to use this tactic is a side-effect of the longer anti-missile ranges in the version you are using (v3.1?). Will you now deliberately build anti-missiles with a longer range (even if you had the choice for short-ranged missiles) so you could use this tactic. Although it won't be possible in v4.1 because of the new no-switching-targets rules for missiles without onboard sensors.

Steve

I had not thought of this strategy until this battle occurred.  This was a result of two different issues, the first being that both sides were able to detect incoming missile waves with thermal sensors far beyond the range at which their active sensors could detect them, which gave them time to launch AMM's and stockpile them against the time when the missiles finally reached engagement range, and, as you noted, the fact that the AMM's have extremely long endurance because of the granularity of the 3.11 missile design system.  

This was an interesting battle from several perspectives, or at least, it was IMO.  

Let me ask this, though.  Do you remember what the criteria was in 3.11, or 4.0b for that matter, for an NPR surrendering?  And how Aurora would handle it, once it happened?

Kurt
Posted by: Kurt
« on: June 30, 2009, 12:42:23 PM »

Quote from: "Unco"
Great write up Kurt! I'm looking forward to part 3.

Is there a dramatic reason that the Soviets attack on the winter solstice? :)

They are just romantic that way!

Kurt
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: June 30, 2009, 12:19:56 PM »

Quote from: "Father Tim"
I don't see the point in massing your anti-missile fire - there's no point defense for them to be concerned about.  Indeed, all it seems to do is waste missiles by overkill.
Kurt can probably address this better but if I understand the situation, he has point defence missiles with a lot more endurance than needed for the fire control range. Assuming the fire control range was only a million km, if he waited until the attacking missiles were in range, he would only get a limited number of shots in the time it took the attacking missiles to cover the one million kilometers. If instead he starts launching anti-missiles while the attacking wave is ten million kilometers away and puts them into a holding pattern, when the attacking wave finally enters fire control range he can hit it with ten times as many anti-missiles.

Steve
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: June 30, 2009, 10:49:06 AM »

I don't see the point in massing your anti-missile fire - there's no point defense for them to be concerned about.  Indeed, all it seems to do is waste missiles by overkill.