Space Combat: Bugs or Illumination?

[Paradigm]

This is just opinion/FYI since I can't back it up with solid numbers or for that matter provide even a scrap of hard evidence here. If this offends your sensibilities, don't read the rest of this posting.

 

I've seen several battle reports that others have shared, and that I've agreed to not pass on to 3rd parties. I've also ran ran a few test combats with cooperative neighbors. I'm reasonably personally convinced there is either:

 

(A) A nasty but hard to prove bug somewhere in the battle resolution routine. Or

 

( Something going on that is a major departure from how I've come to understand the combat system.

 

I think I have as good a grasp on the combat system as anyone short of Pete/Russ, so I'm leaning towards (A). I suspect it only shows in large battles with lots of targets. FWIW I've shared the data (with permission) and analysis with another very bright and experienced player and they agree with me on this.

 

Sorry I can't give hard details here and I'm not going to argue the point. I'm just going to say that I think there's a bug that is subtle enough that Pete hasn't been convinced it exists yet but big enough to affect the outcome of battles with lots of ships. Maybe if we all keep our eyes out for it we can find an extreme enough case that will compel Pete to search for and squash this bug and will provide enough data to help him do so.

 

Note that I have no agenda here other than hoping the bug is found and fixed. I'm not trying to stir up any trouble or bash anyone. I don't think Pete has been lax, I just think it's hidden deep in the code and hard to see.

 

If it turns out to actually be (, well, it must be something pretty wild as I've exhausted my imagination trying to think of something that would fit the evidence I've seen.

 

Don't believe me? I can't blame you. In that case just ignore all of this. It won't hurt my feelings and I can't argue the point here without providing evidence that I've promised not to and will not. Just consider it an opinion.

[D.I.E.]

D.I.E.

 

A thought on the fighters.....

 

What tactic were they on?

 

If it was 'Cover', then we are currently assuming that this implies that all fighters are on Combat Space Patrol (CSP) and thus wouldn't attack the enemy ships at all...

 

Also of interest would be any comment on whether they were all still left at the end of the battle.

 

Pete,

 

And this is a re-plea for the Fighter and Drone tactics to be simply explained - perhaps in GM notes on the next turn?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ur Lord Tedric,

 

That is a very good question... and one that I had considered, myself. (That's how I know it was a good one! )

 

Unfortunately, all my fighters were on "Standard Attack."

 

And looking at my printout, yes, all of my fighters ARE still left after the battle.

 

D.I.E.

[D.I.E.]

And just how did you get 3,100 fighters into 30 FBs.....

 

Perhaps they didn't fight because that's a bit of a cheat IMNSHO.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good eye.

 

There is a bug in the RN order such that:

If there are more that a single type of fighters in the "from" fleet,

And, not all the fighter bays in the "from" are being transfered to the "to" fleet,

THEN more fighters can be carried away in the transfer than available fighter bay capacity should allow.

 

The same bug exists for drones.

 

I have informed Pete of the bug every time I have seen it. (Quite a few times between my two possitions.) And he usually sets the ballence right for me. He did not do so in this particular case. (Too busy, slipped through the cracks... who knows.) But he has yet to fix the RN bug, itself.

 

I did not advertise the bug because the only one who really needed to know it, Pete, already knows. And it occured to me that some unscrupulous players might use the bug to their advantage if they knew of it. So, I kept mum. You are, of course, free to come to your own conclusions about my motives.

 

However, as others have already suggested, this may be the reason my fighters did not launch. If so, then Pete REALLY needs to fix that RN bug! Otherwise it could accidentally shut down the fighters of any player who uses them, without their realizing it!

 

D.I.E.

[D.I.E.]

The Fleet definitely retargets each and every round.  This tends to distribute damage evenly against the enemy, so if you can't destroy a ship outright, you will have a battle of attrition.

 

One factor weighing against too high of an FC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, that is why I am having so much trouble understanding Ali-t-Akua's point. With my very poor fire control, and very very large amounts of firepower, I should have had no problem at all destroying a mear 7 screens, with about 1,000 integrity each, each and every round.

 

Maybe he misundersands MY point. I know that in this battle, I should have lost far more screens than my oponent did. (And I did!) My point is that I had much, much, much more than enough firepower to destroy 7 of his screens each round from the very start. While he was able to destroy 17 of my roughly comparable screens every round, from the start, with a miniscule fraction of the firepower I had.

 

D.I.E.

[D.I.E.]

This is just opinion/FYI since I can't back it up with solid numbers or for that matter provide even a scrap of hard evidence here.  If this offends your sensibilities, don't read the rest of this posting. 

 

I've seen several battle reports that others have shared, and that I've agreed to not pass on to 3rd parties.  I've also ran ran a few test combats with cooperative neighbors.  I'm reasonably personally convinced there is either: 

 

(A) A nasty but hard to prove bug somewhere in the battle resolution routine.  Or

 

( Something going on that is a major departure from how I've come to understand the combat system. 

 

I think I have as good a grasp on the combat system as anyone short of Pete/Russ, so I'm leaning towards (A).  I suspect it only shows in large battles with lots of targets.  FWIW I've shared the data (with permission) and analysis with another very bright and experienced player and they agree with me on this. 

 

Sorry I can't give hard details here and I'm not going to argue the point.  I'm just going to say that I think there's a bug that is subtle enough that Pete hasn't been convinced it exists yet but big enough to affect the outcome of battles with lots of ships.  Maybe if we all keep our eyes out for it we can find an extreme enough case that will compel Pete to search for and squash this bug and will provide enough data to help him do so. 

 

Note that I have no agenda here other than hoping the bug is found and fixed.  I'm not trying to stir up any trouble or bash anyone.  I don't think Pete has been lax, I just think it's hidden deep in the code and hard to see. 

 

If it turns out to actually be (, well, it must be something pretty wild as I've exhausted my imagination trying to think of something that would fit the evidence I've seen. 

 

Don't believe me?  I can't blame you.  In that case just ignore all of this.  It won't hurt my feelings and I can't argue the point here without providing evidence that I've promised not to and will not.  Just consider it an opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Paradigm,

 

I appreciate your reluctance to break a confidence to offer proof of this bug you believe to had detected. And I can understand your reluctance to describe the nature of the bug, lacking publishable proof of details.

 

But I would ask, in general terms, is your bug consistent with the problems I put forth under this topic? Or are you talking about some other bug, entirely?

 

In other words, are you corroborating my observations, or just making a general comment about the state of the combat system?

 

D.I.E.

[Paradigm]

But I would ask, in general terms, is your bug consistent with the problems I put forth under this topic?  Or are you talking about some other bug, entirely?

 

In other words, are you corroborating my observations, or just making a general comment about the state of the combat system?

 

Your results fit within the problem I believe exists. However in the best example I've seen, the side that seemed to have ineffectual fighters (2 types) had one ship with "cover" orders. I don't know if that's important or not. I suppose it could have something to do with having more than one type of fighter in a battle?

 

Do you (or anyone) know if the combat results show the other player's leaders? Has anyone seen combat results from both sides with leaders that can verify this or not?

 

A lot of doubt would be cleared up by including the combat round that ships are lost on in addition to the sequence. I know it's been said that the combat system doesn't have combat rounds in the traditional sense, but this is a computer program so things will happen in some sequence. Having this additional data would help players watch for flaws in the combat system and have more peace of mind that they won or lost fairly. The combat code must be complex enough that it can't be guaranteed to be error free.

 

Keep in mind that fire is supposed to be simultaneous. So ships destroyed early in the round are still supposed to get a last shot in. That might cause the destruction sequence to seem a bit odd, but not what your results show.

[D.I.E.]

Do you (or anyone) know if the combat results show the other player's leaders?  Has anyone seen combat results from both sides with leaders that can verify this or not? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Paradigm,

 

I have seen examples of combat results where leaders appeared to be in both fleets. (From other players.) But since I have only seen those battle reports from one side, I do not know if the list if leaders shown on the "other side" was a true and complete representation.

 

D.I.E.

[Locklyn]

I appreciate you bringing this up D.I.E. and being generous enough to like WKE 235 share your battle reports for everyones greater understanding of the game.

 

While everyone has theories and some seem sounder than others I would feel more at ease with Pete commenting the above but then again perhaps this will all be explained to us in the forthcoming Naval Combat Document that Pete has been working on since fighter and drone tactics, range and many other aspects of combat are still a mystery even to the battle hardened veterans of these last two and half years

 

Locklyn

[D.I.E.]

I appreciate you bringing this up D.I.E. and being generous enough to like WKE 235 share your battle reports for everyones greater understanding of the game.

 

While everyone has theories and some seem sounder than others I would feel more at ease with Pete commenting the above but then again perhaps this will all be explained to us in the forthcoming Naval Combat Document that Pete has been working on since fighter and drone tactics, range and many other aspects of combat are still a mystery even to the battle hardened veterans of these last two and half years

 

Locklyn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Point well taken, Locklyn.

 

I have watched for the past couple of years with great amusement as a many discussions have errupted on this board, along the lines of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Each player argued with great energy to defend his view point... only to have God (Pete?) finally chime in to inform us all that:

1) Angels are not allowed to dance, and

2) Angels are only allowed to congregate on microchips.

 

Could be, I am engaging in similar activity here.

 

I would dearly love to hear the words of "God" in my ear right now. Pete, where are you?

 

D.I.E.

[RTGPete]

I'm looking into this battle - the only way to really examine it in detail is to simply re-run it on the main database backup that I create just before the processing begins. Pretty much watching it run line by line as the battle progresses.

 

Retargeting does occur regularly throughout the battle. On another note, if you should see unusually high point defense ratings for your ships (perhaps with ships that have no point defenses at all), that's umbrella coverage being provided for them, usually by fighters.

[General Miles Avatar]

Holy smokes thats why I had ratings on some ships over 30. What I didnt get though is that I had

my fighters on 'deep strike' orders. cant wait till the doc come out.

[WKE235]

And just how did you get 3,100 fighters into 30 FBs.....

 

Perhaps they didn't fight because that's a bit of a cheat IMNSHO.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably the same way you can get more cargo/colonists carried then ships should allow. Namely scrap one or have it destroyed in battle, anything the fleet was carrying will still be carried even if its strictly no longer legal to do so. I would however expect fighters/drones carried to be re-calculated at the end of a battle, so its more likely he just scraped something with 1 fighter bay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

this is extremely annoying if it's true...

 

I think a few extra rounds of destroyed fighters would be entirely appropriate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Some of the bugs I've encountered (and reported to Pete who has fixed them .. I think):

 

1) After my big Vindicator battle, all ships on my side that could carry fighters or drones were destroyed. The Vindicator has no Cargo Bays. But, on Fleet Cargo report, it was listed that the Vindicator was carrying all the surviving drones and fighters. Impressive. (Note: they disappeared after I fought a Corvette with the Battleship ... *POOF* all gone. Not sure if Pete did it, or, it self corrected in the battle).

 

2) Loading Cargo to a ship. Often if I did OC orders on explorers to dump cargo, and then did LC on cargo ships to pick up the goods, I would see my Cargo ships pick up and carry 45,000 to 50,000 tons of cargo ... even though the capacity was only 40,000 tons! I haven't seen this in quite a bit .. but then I automated my OC's which occur at turns end. It was almost like there was a bug where sometimes the weight of items was not being recorded during the OC (but being reset at each turns end), and hence LC'ing them was like loading 0 tons of goods. Neat trick!

 

Note that these do not always occur. After an early battle where a Dahak Cruiser took up to 70% damage, when the surviving drones tried to load into the ship, it generated a message about insufficent space. Since I had lost only a couple of drones in the fight, the 70% damage caused me to lose 70% of the drones due to no more space on the drone racks. So for the most part, the code seems to work most of the time. Still, on occasion....

[ali-t-akua]

Yes, that is why I am having so much trouble understanding Ali-t-Akua's point. With my very poor fire control, and very very large amounts of firepower, I should have had no problem at all destroying a mear 7 screens, with about 1,000 integrity each, each and every round.

 

Maybe he misundersands MY point. I know that in this battle, I should have lost far more screens than my oponent did. (And I did!) My point is that I had much, much, much more than enough firepower to destroy 7 of his screens each round from the very start. While he was able to destroy 17 of my roughly comparable screens every round, from the start, with a miniscule fraction of the firepower I had.

 

D.I.E you are having a hard time understanding my point because I am not trying to make one. I was asking a question in order to better understand how the combat system works. What if your assumption that your firepower should have been capable of destroying his screens is incorrect? What are the implications of that? On the other hand there could be a bug but until Pete says that there is one I assume that this is the nature of the combat system

 

BTW I agree that your firepower assumptions are reasonable but as I have seen elsewhere what appears reasonable with this combat system is not necessarily how it works. Not that the system is wrong, just that it works in unexpected ways.

 

I hope that clarifies my first post

[Octus Imperium]

he 2 comes from the Vice Admiral. The Vice Admiral has a rank value of 4. The cumulative value of all naval ranks is .. 4 (you get to add in the Vice Admiral). The square root of 4 is 2. So, the Vice Admiral has a value of 4 (Highest rank) + 2 (Square root of Cumulative Ranks) = 6.

 

The example formula from Russ clearly shows that the Highest ranking naval officer does get included in the cumulative calculation. Just because there is only one naval officer present, does not mean the cumulative calc portion is skipped. So strange as it may seem, the Vice Admiral all by his lonsome has a value of 6 (4 + 2 for the square root of cumulative). Or have I missed something in the Legendary Officers thread?

 

It does seem odd that he gets counted twice but I went back and reread the thread and you are correct, he is counted twice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never under estimate the effect of an inspiring leader!

 

Octus

[D.I.E.]

D.I.E you are having a hard time understanding my point because I am not trying to make one. I was asking a question in order to better understand how the combat system works. What if your assumption that your firepower should have been capable of destroying his screens is incorrect? What are the implications of that? On the other hand there could be a bug but until Pete says that there is one I assume that this is the nature of the combat system

 

BTW I agree that your firepower assumptions are reasonable but as I have seen elsewhere what appears reasonable with this combat system is not necessarily how it works. Not that the system is wrong, just that it works in unexpected ways.

 

I hope that clarifies my first post

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ali-t-Akua,

 

Ah! The light dawns! (The problems inherent with attempted communications between aquatic mammal brains and those of flying reptiles!)

 

You are describing a second theory, based upon an entirely different set of hypothetical bugs. To examine this, lets look at three scenarios:

 

1) Everything works in the combat system as advertised.

I target and kill 7 Phoenix screens per round.

Phoenix targets 17 of my screens per round.

At first, my targeted ships die, but as his firepower diminishes with his losses, eventually he is only damaging my screens.

Battle lasts 8 rounds (his 55 screens, divided by 7.) During that time, he can target, and destroy or damage up to 136 of my ships.

This inadequately describes the battle because I was NOT killing his ships until three rounds into the fight, and I had considerably more than 136 ships targeted.

 

2) My theory: All (or the vast majority) of my ships do not fire for two rounds. My fighters also do not launch for at least that long (if at all.)

We both target the same number of ships as in theory 1). But I do not start killing his ships until round 3. The net effect is that combat is extended for two additional rounds.

Battle lasts 10 rounds. During that time, he can target, and destroy or damage up to 170 of my ships.

This comes very close to matching the numbers of what actually happened.

 

3) Your theory: Phoenix’ weapons systems work normally. But my targeting system goes bad, somehow repeatedly targeting the same set of ships until they die. Further, my firepower is actually a tiny fraction of what the battle report says it is. It therefore takes me three rounds to destroy each set of 7 targeted Phoenix ships. (Note, if Phoenix’ weapons strengths were impacted in the same way as mine, then he would be unable to destroy even the first set of 17 targets over the course of the entire battle. So we must assume that only my system were impaired.)

The net effect is that the length of combat would be multiplied by three.

Battle lasts 24 rounds. During that time, Phoenix can target, and destroy or damage up to 408 of my ships. That is more than twice then number he actually hit.

 

Thanks for forcing me to examine an alternate theory. But I think I will stick with my original thought.

 

D.I.E.