ShadowKitsune

I only have a few comments and questions: 1. How long did it take (in turns) for the Hellenic League to build all of those ships, orbitals and surface forts? Because if it was a relatively short period of time, they could build a lot of ground troops with that kind of industrial base. 2. When it comes to Ground Troops, it is still a question of quality over quantity. Outnumbering a foe 3-to-1 doesn't help you if each of your divisions are worth 1/10th of your opponents. 3. Assuming the Hellenic League has Allies, the questions are -- Can their Allies even help? If so, how soon can they provide said help? 4. Unless the Mighty Gremloids were feeling really confident about the outcome of the fight, the Hellenic League has at least one turn to mobilize the Home Guard. Since you need to have a Pop Group to offload your troops onto and launch your GATK from, and you have to issue a COLB order the turn before in order to know what the Pop Group ID is. Thus it is a two turn process. If the GGT issue a COLB order following the battle, the Hellenes will be in trouble methinks. FWIW, -SK

I concur with most of the posters on this thread, in that Planetary Cargo Gates are only worthwhile for a certain subset of Empires in the game. 1) You have to have a colonizable planet, or moon, in system. ICE will not change the habitability of planet or moon. 2) You have to be a reasonably advanced Empire. For me, this means the ability to create ICE-1, or better; build Deep Core Surveyors; and build Improved or Advanced Industrial Complexes, as a minimum. I disagree that PCGs are "stealthy". They light up pretty well when you use a System Probe. FWIW, -SK

Happy New Year! -SK (Better late, than never. )

Under the current operational definition of a "screen" ship, all it has to be is a valid design that will absorb some damage. This means that as a Starship it needs to have a minimum of one Engine and total at least 1000 tons. Orbital Platforms and Planetary Bases only need to total 1000 tons. Most of the "flying brick" (i.e. unarmed) screen ships are composed of salvage; maybe not Mineral Fertilizer, but Mk I Computer Systems, Standard Hull Plating, Mk I Short Range Sensors, Laser CIDS and the like. The only function of the "screen" ship is to absorb a blob of damage. They are basically, IMO, a Fire Control exploit defense. The Combat System, as I understand it, is really simple. Every ship - regardless of armament - is a target. Targets are chosen at random. The number of targets selected per round is based on your Fleet's Fire Control [FC] rating; the higher your FC the more targets selected. The amount of damage you do per target is based on your Fleet's combined Firepower divided by your FC rating. Thus if your opponent has 1000 screen ships composed of nothing but Engines, Jump Drives and Armor and 10 Nova Dreadnaughts which have all the weaonry, your total number of targets is 1010; even though only 10 are any threat. If you had a Firepower rating of 10,000,000,000 but only an FC of 10; every time your target was one of those "useless" screen ships, which will be about 99% of the time to start with, you will be wasting 10% of your total Firepower with absolutely no reduction in your opponents Firepower. Until something comes along that will allow ships to assess threat levels and select their targets based on threat, screens will be viable. Actually, given the overkill nature of Missile, Drone and Fighter defense, armed screen ships make better "Fighters" than Fighters do. Let me explain that last statement a bit. You can defend against Fighters, Drones and Missiles specifically with CIDS and Manueverability (AP Rating), plus Armor and Shields; and only CIDS actually destroy Fighters, Drones and Missiles. As far as I can tell, every weapon type has a CIDS corollary system. Thus you do not have to research "Fighters" to unlock the specific Fighter defense, unlike other weapons systems. For example, Neutron Fixers technology defends against Matter Disruptors and has the Mk I Matter Disruptors as a pre-requisite technology. (I'm not advocating a change in CIDS technology, I actually think it makes sense as far as the Tech Tree goes.) Additionally, with Fighters and Drones, you need to build a specific ship component to utilize and transport them; Fighter Bays and Drone Racks, respectively. Thus to gain the use of 10,000 tons of Fighters or Drones, you need to build an additional 10,000 tons of "storage" space. Screen ships must be defended against just like any other starship, because unlike Fighters, Drones and Missiles, you can arm them with a variety of weaponry. CIDS seperately targets Fighters, Drones and Missiles, while small starships (e.g. screen ships) are targetted by the same weapons used to bring down Nova Dreadnaughts. Thus, you need better Bridge systems to defend against waves of screen "fighters", instead of adding more CIDS. Additionally, high AP values have no effect on the Firepower of screen ships, while it does lower the Firepower value of Fighters, Drones and Missiles. FWIW, -SK

If the Flag Bridge is to be the antithesis of the "screen swarm", it would need to impart threat assessment to the commander of the ship it is a component of. Basically, it would have to allow the capital ships on the side with Flag Bridges the ability to "ignore" the screen ships and target the capital ships of their opponents, thus nullifying the major function of the screens. It would be a bonus if the Flag Bridge-equipped ship(s) could impart their selective targetting ability to the Fleet they were in. It would also be a bonus if the Flag Bridge-equipped ship(s) could prioritize their targets based on firepower. This would completely eliminate the construction of the "flying brick" type of screen ships, which are just engines and non-weapon components. Right now ships will target screens that are nothing but a Mk I Nuclear Engine, a Mk I Nuclear Jump Drive and Standard Hull armor. Why shoot at something that cannot hurt you? (Since kamikaze attacks aren't an option in SN:ROTE.) YMMV, -SK

**Whinge, whine** Don't start feeding Locklyn's whining with your paranoia! Everyone makes mistakes -- there's an old saying "the person who never made a mistake is the person who never made anything". The successful man or woman is not one who never makes mistakes (no such person exists), but one who recovers or corrects mistakes, and learns from them for next time. Whenever I make a mistake as a player in SNROTE, I do my best to fix it and carry on, working out a way to avoid making the same mistake in the future. If RTG make a mistake due to a software bug or manual intervention, then I expect them to fix it depending upon how trivial it is, and I have heard many stories of this being the case. RTG have an enviable reputation in the PBM world and, as with all great reputations, it takes years to acquire. But a bad reputation is acquired much more quickly. I will not judge RTG so harshly when they make an occasional mistake or two. If RTG want to "encourage" Locklyn to leave the game, then one or two drastic mistakes probably would not do it -- so I don't think this is happening, despite what LenLorek may think. Now if RTG were **contunually** screwing up Locklyn's game turn, then I might agree with LenLorek. But from what I know of RTG's reputation, I don't believe this will happen. So, tell me, Locklyn, how was your game turn this time around -- or are you not so eager to tell us when things go RIGHT? Gervais P-F I would disagree with you regarding Locklyn's posts being "whining". He brought up a few valid points: 1. The Combat Engine is flawed. Specifically, it cannot handle battles with large numbers of combatants. Right now, that strain is coming from "useless" screen ships - small (1000-2000 ton) vessels - that are mass produced by the thousands by the more established empires. However, as these same older Empires gain technologies which improve resource gathering and industrial output, they can start to build similar quantities of larger - say 50k-100k ton - vessels, which would be harder to dismiss as "useless". (I could add as a corollary - what exactly am I to do with all of the "low-end" weaponry that I built back when they were "state-of-the-art" such as 10cm Autocannons?) 2. Mistakes were made by RTG. When they were pointed out, the recompense was an apology and nothing more. 3. These issues affect ALL of the players of SN:ROTE, not just him. If your comment was solely directed at the kill ratio of the battle, I will not debate you. I would agree with you that RTG has an excellent reputation within the industry and RTG should try to make amends for damage caused by faulty and/or missing code (or similar "mistakes") by RTG. I would like just a little more "insight" into what is going on "behind the scenes", preferrably as posts in the GM Notes Sections of our Turn Reports. I don't want to know all of the formulae, per se, but I would like to know that the Combat Engine "chokes" on large screen fleet battles and that Pete is trying to resolve the issue through [insert solution(s) here]. YMMV, -SK

*laughing Norseman in the rain* Honey! It's made from honey! *hands you a horn full of mead and walks away* Awesome! Viking Bees! -SK

You're right. That is a seriously long battle report. Too bad the report generator can't group similar ships for reporting purposes like the End of Battle Section. I mean, do you really need to see: ML IML Sinkhole (Minelayer - 1,000 tons) [integrity: 11,900 / 11,900] [shields: 1,600 / 1,600] (Line, Fanatical) 200 Cordellium Composite, 100 Fuel Tankage, 1 Mk II Nuclear Jump Drive, 1 Mk III Force Shield 1 Mk VI Nuclear Engine, 4 Space Mine Rack Mines: 1,056 Maneuverability: 8.00, Missile Defense: 50.00 % Five times? The composition didn't change from Iteration 1 to Iteration 5. I don't know what to tell you about the "making it right" part. The fact that the Combat Engine is unstable is a lot more worrying to me. Hopefully Pete will have something in his next GM Notes about it. FWIW, -SK

SN is independent from Victory! The Battle for Europe games, though we have been receiving a lot more non-email turns to key in (and print and mail out), and often turns come in late in the cycle that need to be entered. I could be harsh and make them miss the turn, but hate to do that. For run time, massive numbers of (in my opinion) utterly worthless screens have bloated the database considerably, causing a fairly significant slow down in normal order processing. Report generation has slowed mostly because of the screen issue (requires me to compress the database several times during the industrial run and snapshot creation) and very fast ships running circular convoy routes many times. I have been determined to let players solve the screen issue on their own as I really don't want to step in and take direct measures if I can help it - if the database bloats too much, it has the final say....but I still hold out hope that players will solve that issue on their own. Those who have figured out how to ignore screens know what I mean, but it takes time for more players to obtain the necessary technology. That being said, does SN:ROTE operate on a single machine? Or is it run on a network of machines? Even after the players "resolve" the massive numbers of screen ships problem, doesn't that still leave the "very fast ships running circular convoy routes many times" challenge? Curious is this one. -SK

Before I learned better Jump Survey Sensors, my "Scout" Ships were actually mini-colonizers. They had the "best" JSS I knew - which were Mk IIs - but they also had space for 3 Colonists and enough Construction Materials to build an Astronomical Observatory, Imperial Science Station and a [regular] Science Station, plus room for 20 Colony Beacons. Since any Population below 10 doesn't really suffer from Attrition, a size 3 Colony was pretty much immune to the ravages of any planet, asteriod, moon or gas giant. Thus, if a planetary system had Class D or worse warp points, I'd plant the Science Colony on a planetary body before I surveyed those warp points. Even with only one Mk II JSS, I could SURV all Class D and E points, and some Class Fs. Add a second Mk II JSS, or better, an Explorer leader, I could get all of the Class Fs, I found. Of course, this helps you not at all, if you're stuck in a Nexus system. FWIW, -SK NOTE: Once I got to Mk IV Jump Survey Sensors, Transwarp Drives and better Engines, I stopped using the Science Colony solution.

I would agree that the Dropped Homeworld would be building towards "optimal" within the parameters of their lifeform design, if the AI was built to be that flavor of "smart". I was advocating such a position. I do, however, disagree with your assertion that it takes all randomness out of the equation. Even if all Dropped Empires build the exact same units, you won't have uniformity in the result, because you are always starting with a different set of initial conditions. This would especially true regarding the Ground Combat. If your Empire knew of five Dropped Empires, each of whom had been running for 10 Turns before you got there with your invasion force and had identically composed Armies that you knew the composition of, you will still have five different battle results, even if your Army was comprised identically in each battle. Why? Lifeform choices. Drop #1 could be a Colonizer, built to tolerate a variety of planetary conditions. Drop #2 could be Brains-in-a-Jar, built to be very smart, but not very tough. Drop #3 could be a Ground Combat race, built to win on the Ground. Drop #4 could be a Psychic race, maxed out in all of the Psychic areas - ESP, Telekinesis, and Telepathy. Drop #5 could be a Middle-of-the-Road race, no flaws, but not really good and anything in particular. Even with everything else being the same, these variations will make the Ground Combat different each time. The odds of everything else being the same are pretty low. Unless each position was dropped right after they were set-up, and even then each position will begin to diverge the 2nd turn after being effectively dropped. Thus, even if the same algorithm was applied to every drop, the variation in initial conditions - Lifeform Design, Homeworld features, "abandoned" Fleets and Armies, Stockpiles and Production Queues - will guarantee that there will be enough variation that each and every conquest will be unique.* *Unless you bring 100:1 or better ratios of overwhelming force everytime. If you bring a big enough hammer, everything will start to look like a nail, right? YMMV, -SK

For the near future, any Neutral your Empire acquires is worth more for what it might possess in it's Stockpiles than any of the "color text" Structures it is comprised of. I'm sure this too will change, eventually. But it's on the RTG "To Do" List of Repairs, Modifications, Implementations and Enhancements for SN:ROTE along with ... -Cloaking Devices -Espionage -Religion -Morale -Diplomatic Agreements & ROEs ... and I'm sure many other things, that I am unaware of. FWIW, -SK

I agree with Paradigm, insofar as Dropped Empires should come with more "smarts" than they currently do. I have stated this before, years ago. I also understand that the game still has more than a few "bugs", missing and incomplete components. It is my philosophy that writing up some code to "take care of" Dropped Empires, similar to that which exists in Victory!, would actually save Pete time in the long run. The Dropped Empire Artificial Intelligence Module, if you will, doesn't even have to be particularly "smart". It could limit itself to a fixed set of Surface Fortresses, Defensive Satellites and Ground Troops then construct and research what it needs to support those builds. Heck, it could all be in one Army and one Fleet. I'm not even going to comment on the part of the thread. YMMV, -SK

Well done, sir! I enjoyed it thoroughly. -SK

Basically, you won't spend more than 47 "Santa" Points on any Technology, but you may spend less? -SK