Somethings Up?

[Hughestrog]

Wow!

 

Thanks everyone for the ongoing, engrossing comment.....

[Laserwolf]

Now, I like math and tell my son that everything is based on math (even biology and perhaps human behavior once we get more insights).

Octus Imperium

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, as you suspected, even human behavior. This is a part of what I do for business owners, through infinite set theory, one can deductively determine an individual's thinking habits, which, in turn, determine behavior.

 

It is a science called Formal Axiology, developed by Dr. Robert Hartman, who was nominated for the Nobel Prize in the 1970's 3 weeks before he died.

[hobknob]

I recently was convinced, in a discussion with a fellow player, that screens are only 1000 tons since that is the smallest size that you can build. Once your ships go beyond the 1000 ton mark then they are no longer screens. There are plenty of designs and tech available to make very fomidable corvettes and other small ships, but the screens of a screen swarm are only 1000 tons.

 

When you compare strategies you also need to take into acount the resources tied up in shipyard slips to make a good number of screens. Having 500 shipyard slips is not a trivial matter. The same resources could be used for 50,000 industries which amounts to better than 10% of starting industrial capacity.

 

[Octus Imperium]

Now, I like math and tell my son that everything is based on math (even biology and perhaps human behavior once we get more insights).

Octus Imperium

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, as you suspected, even human behavior. This is a part of what I do for business owners, through infinite set theory, one can deductively determine an individual's thinking habits, which, in turn, determine behavior.

 

It is a science called Formal Axiology, developed by Dr. Robert Hartman, who was nominated for the Nobel Prize in the 1970's 3 weeks before he died.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thread hijack warning!!

 

Very interesting. I will do some research, since this has some interest to me. But my math skills will be quickly overmatched. Any references you could suggest, simple ones? email is okay.

 

Octus

[Locklyn]

Hobknob,

While I in principle agree with your friend I've found the 1000 ton screen too limiting and preferred to set all my screens at 4000 tons. This meant I could give them an offensive punch, strategic mobility and enough sucking up power to be very effective as screens.

 

Fortunately the GGT early on started building a lot of shipyard slips so producing 500 screens per turn is not a problem. It is also good to set a lot of XSHIP orders which turns obsolete materials into surface fortresses for the HW when you are not busy building something else.

 

/Locklyn

[TErnest]

Hobknob,

While I in principle agree with your friend I've found the 1000 ton screen too limiting and preferred to set all my screens at 4000 tons. This meant I could give them an offensive punch, strategic mobility and enough sucking up power to be very effective as screens.

 

Fortunately the GGT early on started building a lot of shipyard slips so producing 500 screens per turn is not a problem. It is also good to set a lot of XSHIP orders which turns obsolete materials into surface fortresses for the HW when you are not busy building something else.

 

/Locklyn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Locklyn,

 

I think that Hobknob is refering to his recent conversation with me.

 

While I believe that your 4000 tons ships are of significant value. (I wish one of my possitions in particular had about a thousand of them right now.) I think that they are not strictly applicable to any discussion of "Screen Swarm" strategy and tactics. Let me go over the highlights of my discussion with Hobknob:

 

Enlightening Warship Design Principles:

A.) The primary value of small ships is that they can be produced in large quantities.

B.) The primary value of large ships is that they can incorporate certain capabilities not practical in smaller designs. Primarily, this means transwarp drives, but can also include large weapons systems, cloaking devices, stasis field generators, and other large scale equipment.

C.) Any capability that can be built into a given ship can be built into a larger ship at the same or greater level of efficiency.

D.) In general, therefore, when the primary design goal is any quality other than large quantities of ships, larger designs are superior to small designs.

 

Enlightening Defensive Principles:

A.) When faced with a firepower threat, there are three ways to remain in combat long enough to eliminate your enemy. One can create a hybrid defense using any mix of these three defensive strategies:

.....1.) Have the durability to survive his firepower directly. (Armor, shields)

.....2.) Render his firepower partially ineffective. (Directed defensive systems, battle order placement)

.....3.) Cause him to waste his firepower. (Gross overkill of numerous small screens)

B.) The third option is the only defensive strategy that requires, or is even enhanced by, large numbers of small ships. Large numbers of small screens are therefore justified only in so far as this option is emphasized.

C.) By far, the most important quality in ship design when using option 3 is cheapness of manufacture. This, so that more of them can be produced, creating more opportunities for overkill.

Additional Note: As technology increases, options 1 and 2 become more and more practical, while option 3 becomes more and more difficult.

 

A note on “Heavy” Screens: Some advocate for more robust screen designs, especially with advanced armor technologies, designed to withstand large amounts of enemy fire before being destroyed. Under close examination, however, they are actually moving away from defensive strategy 3, in favor of strategy 1. As such, large numbers of very small screens should not be built under this philosophy. Instead, one should build a relatively small number of larger “damage sponges,” also sometimes referred to as “Assault” ships. (See Enlightening Warship Design Principles.)

 

General Hierarchical Principles of Screen Design:

A.) Always include minimal equipment necessary for the ship to function in its mission. One example may be a jump drive. (In some cases, it may be necessary to include certain ship capabilities in order to avoid large numbers of screens degrading the performance of the war fleet, taken as a whole. Examples of this may include extra engines in order to avoid pulling down the fleet speed, or adding a small amount of fire control equipment to avoid a cumulative decrease in the total fleet fire control rating.)

B.) Except where it conflicts with A, smaller ships are always better, because smaller ships are easier to produce. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no screen design should exceed 1,000 tons.

C.) Except where it conflicts with A or B, equipment cheaply manufactured is always better than hard to build equipment. For example, under most circumstances, armor is cheaper to build than computers.

D.) Except where it conflicts with A, B or C, try to include equipment that will augment fleet efficiency in some critical way, while the ship survives. Examples could include cheaply built space weapons, extra fuel tankage, or even armor. (Note that in keeping with principle C, the primary value of armor would not be in its ability to absorb hits, but in its cheapness of manufacture.)

 

TErnest

Arcane Services, Inc.

Imperial Demonic Envelopement

[hobknob]

Yes that was it. Hopefully this conversation was after a couple of cups of coffee or the results may be in question.

[Locklyn]

TErnest,

 

Very well put and thought through!

 

I must admit that I wanted my "screens" to be able to hold WPs against smaller scouts and such so I equipped them with fairly heavy weaponry as well. If I would just put defensive items on them they would be able to block around 10-12 million damage per ship. Now they can block around half of that and still inflict heavy damage on their own. Since slips haven't been a problem nor the shipyard capacity I've rather pushed out 3-400 of these a turn and been able to use them multirole as sentries for WPs as well as in an offensive capacity.

 

Anyways kudos to sharing your theories with us!

Cheers

/Locklyn

[ali-t-akua]

TErnest,

 

Very well put and thought through!

 

I must admit that I wanted my "screens" to be able to hold WPs against smaller scouts and such so I equipped them with fairly heavy weaponry as well. If I would just put defensive items on them they would be able to block around 10-12 million damage per ship. Now they can block around half of that and still inflict heavy damage on their own. Since slips haven't been a problem nor the shipyard capacity I've rather pushed out 3-400 of these a turn and been able to use them multirole as sentries for WPs as well as in an offensive capacity.

 

Anyways kudos to sharing your theories with us!

Cheers

/Locklyn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

300 to 400 per turn!!! I hope we can be friends as I am a long way from building that many .

 

TErnest, great conceptual discussion regarding space combat. Have you actually implemented any of these strategies and if so, how has it worked out?

[Locklyn]

We'll always be friends mate )

 

Actually to be honest the last couple of turns I haven't been able to build as many as I've completed a series of 4096000 ton Carriers and my two newest 16384000 ton warships the IAS Gunboat Diplomat and the IAS Attitude Adjuster and yes I am a sucker for Ian M Banks Culture books

 

There are always so many types of ships you want to build so you have to invest in slips and yards. Building at least 100 HW surface screens per turn is a must, both for dealing with obsolete materials and for that day when nasty aliens come a knocking, then you want your orbital screens, then you want the offensive screens and then your regular ships of the line as well...what is a gremloid to do? Luckily the latest technological developments and species engineering to the max has meant that Gremloids aren't as afraid of space as they used to be or crewing would be a serious issue

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

[ali-t-akua]

We'll always be friends mate )

 

Actually to be honest the last couple of turns I haven't been able to build as many as I've completed a series of 4096000 ton Carriers and my two newest 16384000 ton warships the IAS Gunboat Diplomat and the IAS Attitude Adjuster and yes I am a sucker for Ian M Banks Culture books

 

There are always so many types of ships you want to build so you have to invest in slips and yards. Building at least 100 HW surface screens per turn is a must, both for dealing with obsolete materials and for that day when nasty aliens come a knocking, then you want your orbital screens, then you want the offensive screens and then your regular ships of the line as well...what is a gremloid to do? Luckily the latest technological developments and species engineering to the max has meant that Gremloids aren't as afraid of space as they used to be or crewing would be a serious issue

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good to hear that the Gremloids are willingly crewing your warships. We never had that problem as our HW is only marginally warmer than space so we think of it as ancient Earthians thought of a ski trip with an atmosphere mask. However, we are building shipyard slips and can build substantial number so of screens but it is not on the same order as your number of slips.. yet.

[WKE235]

[Enlightening Defensive Principles:

A.) When faced with a firepower threat, there are three ways to remain in combat long enough to eliminate your enemy.  One can create a hybrid defense using any mix of these three defensive strategies:

.....1.) Have the durability to survive his firepower directly.  (Armor, shields)

.....2.) Render his firepower partially ineffective.  (Directed defensive systems, battle order placement)

.....3.) Cause him to waste his firepower.  (Gross overkill of numerous small screens)

B.) The third option is the only defensive strategy that requires, or is even enhanced by, large numbers of small ships.  Large numbers of small screens are therefore justified only in so far as this option is emphasized.

C.) By far, the most important quality in ship design when using option 3 is cheapness of manufacture.  This, so that more of them can be produced, creating more opportunities for overkill.

Additional Note: As technology increases, options 1 and 2 become more and more practical, while option 3 becomes more and more difficult.

 

A note on “Heavy” Screens:  Some advocate for more robust screen designs, especially with advanced armor technologies, designed to withstand large amounts of enemy fire before being destroyed.  Under close examination, however, they are actually moving away from defensive strategy 3, in favor of strategy 1.  As such, large numbers of very small screens should not be built under this philosophy.  Instead, one should build a relatively small number of larger “damage sponges,” also sometimes referred to as “Assault” ships.  (See Enlightening Warship Design Principles.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe your analysis is missing several key items.

 

1) To date, the increase in armor protection from one tech generation to the next is staying ahead of and even outstripping corresponding increases in weapons fire power and fire control ratings. The small screen defensive strategy is a race between your defensive increases -vs- the enemies increases in firepower and fire control. When one tech advance on armor gives you about 3 times as many integrity points, the enemy needs a similar firepower increase just to keep up. As most fire power per ton increases level to level are about 2 times, the enemy is falling behind. Now this is partially made up by increases in Fire control (about 2 times per level), as a fire control increase means you can get the same base fire rate with fewer comps (and this extra tonnage can be used for weapons). But to date (and for the forseeable future), armor still has the advantage and it is improving faster that offensive abilities.

 

2) Placing armor on the screens is not a movement from strategy 3 to 1. It is merely one aspect of the total Screening strategy, which uses all the strategies to maximize your defensive ability. You place your Heavy ships in Deploy Location 7 (Strat 2 - Battle Placement) to reduce the odds they are targetted and reduce the damage they do take if shot at, you bulk up the screens with advanced armor (Start 1 - Survivability) to reduce the chances they can be taken out with one fire pulse (if an enemy fire pulse is less than the power needed to take out a screen ship on one pulse, victory is all but assured), and you place lots of ships in front of the Heavy ships (Start 3 - Enemy Waste). Since you've designed your Heavy Ships with, and researched the longer range weapons, you end up dishing out damage to the enemy as they fight through the screen. As they waste fire power and combat rounds to try and reach you, your forces are hopefully eliminating their more limited screen, and then picking apart their main ships. Heck, to maximize fire power (for attacking the screen ships) the attacker may place all the capital ships in Deploy Location 1 or 2. This means you have a much better chance early on to target and fire on their capital ships, than they do on you in return. The screening strategy combines all three strategic principals to keep the overall plan strong.

 

ON a face to face, mano on mano basis, the screens are very hard to beat .. at this time. Of course, the screen strategy is not perfect. Players with screens tend to build a defensive wall .. but neglect the areas behind. So if someone does penetrate the wall (say with an unexpected one way WP, or cloaked ships, or <Classified>), even a small raider can wreck their economy attacking cargo and colonial ships.

 

Also, Screen walls, once built, weaken over time as the enemy weapons tech advances. Replacing ships built using Cordellium armor with ones with built using Tckon takes time / resources and is not practical. The weaker and older ships can be kept in the screen, to draw fire from the newer screens. But eventually become prone to attacks by small high firepower high fire control ships due to advancing tech. The enemy can start to win a war of attrition by sacrificing some small ships of advanced tech (say, slow moving 40,000 ton raiders with fire controls in the low 100's), to destroy a lot more of your material in old screens (like destroying 80+ enemy screen ships, or 80,000 tons lost). Eventually they will be to punch through the wall.

[Locklyn]

[Enlightening Defensive Principles:

A.) When faced with a firepower threat, there are three ways to remain in combat long enough to eliminate your enemy.  One can create a hybrid defense using any mix of these three defensive strategies:

.....1.) Have the durability to survive his firepower directly.  (Armor, shields)

.....2.) Render his firepower partially ineffective.  (Directed defensive systems, battle order placement)

.....3.) Cause him to waste his firepower.  (Gross overkill of numerous small screens)

B.) The third option is the only defensive strategy that requires, or is even enhanced by, large numbers of small ships.  Large numbers of small screens are therefore justified only in so far as this option is emphasized.

C.) By far, the most important quality in ship design when using option 3 is cheapness of manufacture.  This, so that more of them can be produced, creating more opportunities for overkill.

Additional Note: As technology increases, options 1 and 2 become more and more practical, while option 3 becomes more and more difficult.

 

A note on “Heavy” Screens:  Some advocate for more robust screen designs, especially with advanced armor technologies, designed to withstand large amounts of enemy fire before being destroyed.  Under close examination, however, they are actually moving away from defensive strategy 3, in favor of strategy 1.  As such, large numbers of very small screens should not be built under this philosophy.  Instead, one should build a relatively small number of larger “damage sponges,” also sometimes referred to as “Assault” ships.  (See Enlightening Warship Design Principles.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if someone does penetrate the wall (say with an unexpected one way WP, or cloaked ships, or <Classified>), even a small raider can wreck their economy attacking cargo and colonial ships.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

EEEK! Unarmed ships!? What travesty is that!? As all sane Gremloids know the only way to travel in space, no matter what your function is, is in heavily armed, armored and shielded spaceships. All this talk of unarmed cargo and colonial ships makes us shudder....

 

/Locklyn

[TErnest]

TErnest,

 

Very well put and thought through!

 

I must admit that I wanted my "screens" to be able to hold WPs against smaller scouts and such so I equipped them with fairly heavy weaponry as well. If I would just put defensive items on them they would be able to block around 10-12 million damage per ship. Now they can block around half of that and still inflict heavy damage on their own. Since slips haven't been a problem nor the shipyard capacity I've rather pushed out 3-400 of these a turn and been able to use them multirole as sentries for WPs as well as in an offensive capacity.

 

Anyways kudos to sharing your theories with us!

Cheers

/Locklyn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

300 to 400 per turn!!! I hope we can be friends as I am a long way from building that many .

 

TErnest, great conceptual discussion regarding space combat. Have you actually implemented any of these strategies and if so, how has it worked out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes. One of my possitions is getting badly trounced in a war. One of those cases where your opponent is fielding equipment that is two or more generations ahead of your own in armor, fire control, weapons, and CIDS. What I posted were my thoughts as I was trying to figure out how best to improve my defensive efficiencies with the very poor hand I dealt myself.

 

This does make for the most efficient "Screen" designs possible. Unfortunately though, it is not enough for my situation. My tech disadvantage is such that none of the three defensive strategies will work very well.

 

TErnest

[TErnest]

[Enlightening Defensive Principles:

A.) When faced with a firepower threat, there are three ways to remain in combat long enough to eliminate your enemy.  One can create a hybrid defense using any mix of these three defensive strategies:

.....1.) Have the durability to survive his firepower directly.  (Armor, shields)

.....2.) Render his firepower partially ineffective.  (Directed defensive systems, battle order placement)

.....3.) Cause him to waste his firepower.  (Gross overkill of numerous small screens)

B.) The third option is the only defensive strategy that requires, or is even enhanced by, large numbers of small ships.  Large numbers of small screens are therefore justified only in so far as this option is emphasized.

C.) By far, the most important quality in ship design when using option 3 is cheapness of manufacture.  This, so that more of them can be produced, creating more opportunities for overkill.

Additional Note: As technology increases, options 1 and 2 become more and more practical, while option 3 becomes more and more difficult.

 

A note on “Heavy” Screens:  Some advocate for more robust screen designs, especially with advanced armor technologies, designed to withstand large amounts of enemy fire before being destroyed.  Under close examination, however, they are actually moving away from defensive strategy 3, in favor of strategy 1.  As such, large numbers of very small screens should not be built under this philosophy.  Instead, one should build a relatively small number of larger “damage sponges,” also sometimes referred to as “Assault” ships.  (See Enlightening Warship Design Principles.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe your analysis is missing several key items.

 

1) To date, the increase in armor protection from one tech generation to the next is staying ahead of and even outstripping corresponding increases in weapons fire power and fire control ratings. The small screen defensive strategy is a race between your defensive increases -vs- the enemies increases in firepower and fire control. When one tech advance on armor gives you about 3 times as many integrity points, the enemy needs a similar firepower increase just to keep up. As most fire power per ton increases level to level are about 2 times, the enemy is falling behind. Now this is partially made up by increases in Fire control (about 2 times per level), as a fire control increase means you can get the same base fire rate with fewer comps (and this extra tonnage can be used for weapons). But to date (and for the forseeable future), armor still has the advantage and it is improving faster that offensive abilities.

 

2) Placing armor on the screens is not a movement from strategy 3 to 1. It is merely one aspect of the total Screening strategy, which uses all the strategies to maximize your defensive ability. You place your Heavy ships in Deploy Location 7 (Strat 2 - Battle Placement) to reduce the odds they are targetted and reduce the damage they do take if shot at, you bulk up the screens with advanced armor (Start 1 - Survivability) to reduce the chances they can be taken out with one fire pulse (if an enemy fire pulse is less than the power needed to take out a screen ship on one pulse, victory is all but assured), and you place lots of ships in front of the Heavy ships (Start 3 - Enemy Waste). Since you've designed your Heavy Ships with, and researched the longer range weapons, you end up dishing out damage to the enemy as they fight through the screen. As they waste fire power and combat rounds to try and reach you, your forces are hopefully eliminating their more limited screen, and then picking apart their main ships. Heck, to maximize fire power (for attacking the screen ships) the attacker may place all the capital ships in Deploy Location 1 or 2. This means you have a much better chance early on to target and fire on their capital ships, than they do on you in return. The screening strategy combines all three strategic principals to keep the overall plan strong.

 

ON a face to face, mano on mano basis, the screens are very hard to beat .. at this time. Of course, the screen strategy is not perfect. Players with screens tend to build a defensive wall .. but neglect the areas behind. So if someone does penetrate the wall (say with an unexpected one way WP, or cloaked ships, or <Classified>), even a small raider can wreck their economy attacking cargo and colonial ships.

 

Also, Screen walls, once built, weaken over time as the enemy weapons tech advances. Replacing ships built using Cordellium armor with ones with built using Tckon takes time / resources and is not practical. The weaker and older ships can be kept in the screen, to draw fire from the newer screens. But eventually become prone to attacks by small high firepower high fire control ships due to advancing tech. The enemy can start to win a war of attrition by sacrificing some small ships of advanced tech (say, slow moving 40,000 ton raiders with fire controls in the low 100's), to destroy a lot more of your material in old screens (like destroying 80+ enemy screen ships, or 80,000 tons lost). Eventually they will be to punch through the wall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WKE,

 

I think you are misunderstaning me on a fundamental level. I think we have a misunderstanding of vocabulary. Size alone does make a screen. Nor even placement in the order of battle. One can build a screen "swarm" of 100,000 ton ships, although that would not be best design. And damage sponges, (assault ships) can be made with only 1000 tons... again, not the best design. I am trying to define ships by their defensive mission class, then ascertain how best to design them to fulfill that defensive mission.

 

To start with, there are three ways to survive your enemy shooting at you long enough for your own guns to kill him: Absorb his shots on shields or armor, use fleet positioning or special defensive systems to make it so he does not hit as hard, or get him to waste all his 100 megaton punches on 98 pound weeklings. As you point out in your analysis, usually the best defense is a hybrid mix of all three strategies. This, ideally, with individual ship designs targeting individual defensive missions, for maximum efficiency.

 

What I was trying to focus on most was how best to improve one's efficiency on the application of strategy #3, the screen swarm.

 

If you are designing your ships to survive his hits, you are <<by definition!!!>> shifting to strategy #1 in that particular ship design. Now it is certainly alright to build "screening" ships to absorb shots with their armor, and place them in your first rank. I like to call these "assault ships" or "damage sponges" in order to avoid confusing them with "screen swarms". Since one ship with 100,000 tons of armor can abosorb the same amount of firepower of 100 ships with 1000 armor each, and since that one ship can have other useful equipment (e.g. NTWD) and since it takes fewer shipyard slips to build the one ship, it is generally a superior strategy to build one's damage sponges on a larger scale.

 

By similar reasoning, if you are desinging your "screen swarms" a single ship of 4000 tons only offers, at most, one opportunity to get your opponent to waste a big chunk of his firepower when it dies. If you spend the same resources on four 1000 ton ships, you create four opportunies for wasted firepower through massive overkill.

 

While damage sponges can be rendered less useful through increased firepower (weapons tech) of your opponent, true screen swarms are not. In fact, if your enemy only increases his firepower without adiquate attention to bridge systems, screen swarms become even more effective.

 

The reverse is also true. Screen swarms rapidly become less useful as enemy fire control (bridge tech) increases. But a brick made of armor cares very little whether you hit once with 1M firepower, or 100 times with 10,000 firepower.

 

TErnest