Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: Yesterday at 07:32:15 PM »Mine are always modular. Faster to build and makes it easier to tailor the 'base' to what the mission needs.
Posted by: paolot
« on: Yesterday at 02:08:55 PM »Please, can you share some examples of stations that you place at DSPs (far from planets)?
Do you prefer one large behemoth, filled with sensors, missiles, guns, refuelling capacity, MSP, hangar, etc.? or few smaller bases, each one specialised for one or two missions (that can be built in parallel, and each one easily moved by one tug)?
Do you prefer one large behemoth, filled with sensors, missiles, guns, refuelling capacity, MSP, hangar, etc.? or few smaller bases, each one specialised for one or two missions (that can be built in parallel, and each one easily moved by one tug)?
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: July 05, 2025, 03:22:17 AM »Intuitively, I think players expect a decoy to "look like" the ship it's decoying from, i.e., to have the same signature. I can see why the actual mechanic is different, as its more flexible and less micromanage-y than requiring exact size matching (plus avoid issues with ship sizes that aren't nice, round numbers), but the fact that an infinite swarm of size-5 decoys is arguably optimal (same performance and cost as any other option, maximum flexibility) seems to eliminate what could/should be a gameplay decision point.
I don't agree smaller decoys are always optimal. For when your facing negligable missile threats smaller sized decoys mean ships with standard settings will always launch some decoys even against tricklefire from AMMs that your PD or Shields can shrug off which adds cost (or alot micro if you want to turn it off situationally).
For larger decoys it's much easier to have a sensible cut-off setting so that for negligable threats with fewer incoming MSP then 0 decoys will be launched, while still ensuring all decoys will be launched against that deadly alpha strike.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 04, 2025, 05:27:12 PM »Can player races resurvey a system if they suspect a dormant jump point?
I assumed you had to wait until you could have a sensor detect another race's ship transit through the suspected dormant jump point.
Yes, it was added a while ago, although you were always able to manually resurvey a specific location, IIRC.
Do you mean literally resurveying jump points
This one.
Posted by: EclipsedStar
« on: July 04, 2025, 05:22:00 PM »Do you mean literally resurveying jump points/celestial bodies, or do you mean having a ship fly around each body with sensors active to see if anyone's 'home'?
Posted by: AdamantineAxe
« on: July 04, 2025, 05:18:41 PM »Can player races resurvey a system if they suspect a dormant jump point?
I assumed you had to wait until you could have a sensor detect another race's ship transit through the suspected dormant jump point.
I assumed you had to wait until you could have a sensor detect another race's ship transit through the suspected dormant jump point.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 04, 2025, 02:45:40 PM »A repeat of an earlier, unanswered question: Do NPRs ever get suspicious of a dormant jump point and conduct resurveys of their systems? Asking for a friend(ly battlefleet)...
Posted by: serger
« on: July 04, 2025, 02:17:59 AM »I'd suggest to make larger decoys significanty better, something like (size^2) factor for the probability of a missile hitting the decoy. The drawback is obvious, it would not be an imbalance the opposite way.
Posted by: serger
« on: July 04, 2025, 01:06:10 AM »One of the closest things to decoys used on modern ships is Chaff, which is a lot of very small things to confuse incoming missiles. So smaller decoys make a degree of sense. Aside from a small number of air launched drones I am not aware of any decoys which do try to match the signature of a real vehicle.
Not a Navy example, yet nearly half of the russian long range drones currently launching at Ukraine every day are Gerbera type, which are mostly decoys, mimiking the main long range strike drone type (Geran-2, the russian licensed copy of Iranian Shahed-136). Gerbera type radar signatures are artifically enlarged to match Geran-2.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 03, 2025, 11:10:52 PM »One of the closest things to decoys used on modern ships is Chaff, which is a lot of very small things to confuse incoming missiles. So smaller decoys make a degree of sense. Aside from a small number of air launched drones I am not aware of any decoys which do try to match the signature of a real vehicle.
Modern flares are mimicking the actual engine signature in wavelength, not just heat, to fool heat-seeking missiles as their homing heads have gotten increasingly sophisticated. And decoy drones, most of which specs are secret, are trying to mimic the sensor signatures of real planes or ships. Same with sonar and submarine-launched decoys.
Usually the real-world example I think of when I think of decoys is the AN/SLQ-25 Nixie (because all ECM components should have cute names!). However, even this doesn't try to exactly mimic the ship's "active signature", per se, but tries to draw off fire by mimicking ship noise or by reflecting the torpedo's pings back at it. Since missiles in Aurora usually home on the gravitational signature rather than noise, I think the former method is probably not applicable, but the idea of reflecting the active pings of the enemy sensors/MFCs to confuse incoming ordnance works fine, so if decoys do not have to (or cannot) match ship size I don't think it's a problem, even if it would be nice to support that for roleplay purposes.
One stills lacks a reason to use anything larger than the minimum size of decoys, however.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: July 03, 2025, 10:52:56 PM »Modern flares are mimicking the actual engine signature in wavelength, not just heat, to fool heat-seeking missiles as their homing heads have gotten increasingly sophisticated. And decoy drones, most of which specs are secret, are trying to mimic the sensor signatures of real planes or ships. Same with sonar and submarine-launched decoys.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: July 03, 2025, 08:48:37 PM »One of the closest things to decoys used on modern ships is Chaff, which is a lot of very small things to confuse incoming missiles. So smaller decoys make a degree of sense. Aside from a small number of air launched drones I am not aware of any decoys which do try to match the signature of a real vehicle.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 03, 2025, 07:21:24 PM »Decoys can be any size. A few, smaller decoys would give you more flexibility if want to lessen a strike rather than commit everything.
I think the confusing part is that there appears to be no reason, mechanically, to make decoy missiles that match the ship size, or in fact anything larger than the minimum decoy size. As far as I can tell, only the total mass/signature of decoys determines the fraction of missiles deflected, and cost scales linearly for both decoys and launchers.
Intuitively, I think players expect a decoy to "look like" the ship it's decoying from, i.e., to have the same signature. I can see why the actual mechanic is different, as its more flexible and less micromanage-y than requiring exact size matching (plus avoid issues with ship sizes that aren't nice, round numbers), but the fact that an infinite swarm of size-5 decoys is arguably optimal (same performance and cost as any other option, maximum flexibility) seems to eliminate what could/should be a gameplay decision point.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: July 03, 2025, 05:30:55 PM »Decoys can be any size. A few, smaller decoys would give you more flexibility if want to lessen a strike rather than commit everything.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 03, 2025, 01:34:50 PM »I thought that only decoy missiles with the correct signature will defend a ship. In other words, a 20,000 ton ship must be defended by decoys which each have a signature of 20,000, not multiple decoys with signatures that add up to 20,000.
Hmmm...after reviewing the section on decoy missiles I can't rule out your take on it, or mine. It isn't clear. Arguably your take is better given the limitation on decoy launcher size, but that could be an oversight.
This way would make more sense to me as well. However, my observations of NPR designs is that they don't really match the decoy size to the ship size, and I assume Steve would not deliberately saddle the NPRs with an unworkable design feature.
