Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

Overcoming Screens...


Flagritz
 Share

Recommended Posts

From Locklyn's post:

 

Actually I think I finally figured out what Pete was talking about, and if that is correct then there is indeed tech in the game designed for this purpose, thank you Neevians for showing me the light in that battle. I will be testing it out soon myself with some other enemies. As usual with Pete, you sometimes need to think out of the box, especially the gamer box and you'll see what could be the answer to all our screen issues

 

So, it's a "tech in the game".

 

Also, the Neevians recently triggered the insight. Anyone know of the Neevians? Perhaps a post of the battle with Locklyn would be helpful. Would you care to post that battle Locklyn? Or Neeveians?

 

Locklyn also says "think out of the box, especially the gamer box". Does that mean to think like a roleplayer <ugh>? What would a roleplayer type person design into their ships that would help defeat screen ships? Laser Comm gear? Universal translator device (to intercept potential enemy movements)? Comeon you roleplayers, give a gamer an insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This all got started to try and come up with a solution to put an end to the massive screen battles that are slowing the game, if there is a way we can all change our stratergies so that screen fleets are no longer useful and therefore pointless to build, which will speed up the battles and get turns out quicker.... well.... how about just telling us...

 

Or as I suspect this revelation may turn out to be as accurate as razor wire for DC's :}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, that's it? No comments from anyone?

 

Pete, would you care to chime in? Still wondering if the ANZ's for the different bridge systems are window dressing or if perhaps there's hints of a 'screen swatting strategy' to be found.

 

As far as any revalations, I know I haven't made any. I'm just proposing theories as to how to overcome screens and curious to hear other people's theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember, that if it is indeed a correct assumption I am making which will be tested in battles the coming turns, then to have found it before the majority of players know of it or have researched to those levels gives me and my allies a tactical advantage in combat against our opponents, thus the best you could hope to get from me is a confirmation that such tech does exist, not the exact solution as it would impair my own campaigns and those of my allies. But it would be satisfactory enough to actually find that Pete HAD thought of this problem and HAD implemented features in the game which dealt with it...that would give me hope of actually finding the vaunted special mental powers tech pete talked about five years ago :D

 

Oh and Pete doesn't chime in on tech specifics as if he gave something away that some poor souls had slaved to gain first (read stumbled across) then they wouldn't be happy campers.

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Locklyn,

 

I can't argue your motivations. I just want to understand what could potentially be the holy grail to the screen issue. If you and the Neeve Dynasty are correct and this does "solve" the screen issue, this information will become common knowledge. Fortunately I don't need the information at present as I'm not involved in any conflicts. I'm content to let time pass and take it's course. I'm just an interested party for now.

 

As far as any vaunted special mental powers tech, since I don't have them it doesn't really concern me too much other than as a point of interest. If I decide to go down the Species Engineering route and use the points to buy a mental power, it could then become more than a point of interest. Maybe the special powers are related to Neutronium somehow?

 

Regarding Pete, I can understand that Pete wouldn't give away something that poor souls had slaved to gain first. However, my most recent question had to do with whether the ANZ descriptions for 'communication' type components is window dressing or not. Answering that type question doesn't give away anything. It simply confirms whether he was feeling especially artistic when the ANZ were written or whether there is an actual in game meaning to the ANZ's that are out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to ANZ, the descriptive text in them are in my experience mostly fluff, when it comes to special abilities or such, especially for weapon systems such as stun beams etc. I've yet to capture a ship despite countless battles, specially designed raider ships with grapples and stun weapons, high space combat bonus and both naval and martial leaders present (for supposed boarding actions) but then some people like MMB seem very successful in that area so perhaps I'm missing something.

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to ANZ, the descriptive text in them are in my experience mostly fluff, when it comes to special abilities or such, especially for weapon systems such as stun beams etc. I've yet to capture a ship despite countless battles, specially designed raider ships with grapples and stun weapons, high space combat bonus and both naval and martial leaders present (for supposed boarding actions) but then some people like MMB seem very successful in that area so perhaps I'm missing something.

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

 

Do you have had a Marine Detachment on board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gettting back to the title of this post, one thing I recollect is that in the past, before the combat "report out" was changed/updated to reflect actual numbers, there was one category listed as "Sensors". When a ship was constructed without sensors, the rating in that category was "Blind". Why would Pete have included a separate category for Sensors? There was also one for Computers amongst other categories, and that could have served to handle the 'bridge' ratings. Perhaps that's where a clue lies.

 

Now, looking at the ANZ for sensors, I see the following description (they are all pretty similar so here is a Mk 3 Short range sensor):

 

The Mk III Short Range Sensor is a third generation naval sensor system. It is a

self-contained, multi-purpose unit capable of handling all routine navigational duties as

well as serving as the primary target acquisition and fire control sensor system during

combat. Accordingly, the system has a 360 ° field of vision and is equipped with the

latest in sensor technology. (100 tons) 100 Improved Transaluminum - 400 Improved

Electronics

 

Note the line that says "as well as serving as the primart target acquisition and fire control sensor during combat". Perhaps this is just window dressing per Locklyn's most recent comment. Perhaps any sensors are only as valuable as their bridge rating and the ANZ is truely window dressing. However, can anyone say that their combat ship designs routinely carry a sensor? Perhaps you should test this in a combat situation. Test a fleet of sensor equipped ships versus non-sensor equipped ships and see whether there is 'better' targetting performance or not. Realize that better is NOT the actual number of ships targetted per turn, but perhaps by the 'quality' of the ships targetted, with more 'dangerous' ships targetted (and hopefully destroyed) before the 1kt chattel.

 

This is just a theory. But think. In any science fiction story with "realistic" portrayal of ship combat, aren't sensors important? How can any ship "see" its environment without external sensors? The short answer is that it can't. So, perhaps people have been so focused on getting high bridge ratings via computers that they have neglected the all important sensor. After all, you can have the maximum super uber computer but without reliable external input, what good is it? Also, why would there be so many sensor tech paths out there for people to research if they weren't useful? Bear in mind that there are Short, Medium and Long range sensors and it appears they all go up to at least Mk VI in level. The 'bridge' ratings are relatively low but maybe that's not their real use...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gettting back to the title of this post, one thing I recollect is that in the past, before the combat "report out" was changed/updated to reflect actual numbers, there was one category listed as "Sensors". When a ship was constructed without sensors, the rating in that category was "Blind". Why would Pete have included a separate category for Sensors? There was also one for Computers amongst other categories, and that could have served to handle the 'bridge' ratings. Perhaps that's where a clue lies.

 

Now, looking at the ANZ for sensors, I see the following description (they are all pretty similar so here is a Mk 3 Short range sensor):

 

The Mk III Short Range Sensor is a third generation naval sensor system. It is a

self-contained, multi-purpose unit capable of handling all routine navigational duties as

well as serving as the primary target acquisition and fire control sensor system during

combat. Accordingly, the system has a 360 ° field of vision and is equipped with the

latest in sensor technology. (100 tons) 100 Improved Transaluminum - 400 Improved

Electronics

 

Note the line that says "as well as serving as the primart target acquisition and fire control sensor during combat". Perhaps this is just window dressing per Locklyn's most recent comment. Perhaps any sensors are only as valuable as their bridge rating and the ANZ is truely window dressing. However, can anyone say that their combat ship designs routinely carry a sensor? Perhaps you should test this in a combat situation. Test a fleet of sensor equipped ships versus non-sensor equipped ships and see whether there is 'better' targetting performance or not. Realize that better is NOT the actual number of ships targetted per turn, but perhaps by the 'quality' of the ships targetted, with more 'dangerous' ships targetted (and hopefully destroyed) before the 1kt chattel.

 

This is just a theory. But think. In any science fiction story with "realistic" portrayal of ship combat, aren't sensors important? How can any ship "see" its environment without external sensors? The short answer is that it can't. So, perhaps people have been so focused on getting high bridge ratings via computers that they have neglected the all important sensor. After all, you can have the maximum super uber computer but without reliable external input, what good is it? Also, why would there be so many sensor tech paths out there for people to research if they weren't useful? Bear in mind that there are Short, Medium and Long range sensors and it appears they all go up to at least Mk VI in level. The 'bridge' ratings are relatively low but maybe that's not their real use...

 

Sounds plausible to me. I always figured the justification for weapons not being able to target important ships was at long range all the enemy ships just looked like points of light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gettting back to the title of this post, one thing I recollect is that in the past, before the combat "report out" was changed/updated to reflect actual numbers, there was one category listed as "Sensors". When a ship was constructed without sensors, the rating in that category was "Blind". Why would Pete have included a separate category for Sensors? There was also one for Computers amongst other categories, and that could have served to handle the 'bridge' ratings. Perhaps that's where a clue lies.

 

Now, looking at the ANZ for sensors, I see the following description (they are all pretty similar so here is a Mk 3 Short range sensor):

 

The Mk III Short Range Sensor is a third generation naval sensor system. It is a

self-contained, multi-purpose unit capable of handling all routine navigational duties as

well as serving as the primary target acquisition and fire control sensor system during

combat. Accordingly, the system has a 360 ° field of vision and is equipped with the

latest in sensor technology. (100 tons) 100 Improved Transaluminum - 400 Improved

Electronics

 

Note the line that says "as well as serving as the primart target acquisition and fire control sensor during combat". Perhaps this is just window dressing per Locklyn's most recent comment. Perhaps any sensors are only as valuable as their bridge rating and the ANZ is truely window dressing. However, can anyone say that their combat ship designs routinely carry a sensor? Perhaps you should test this in a combat situation. Test a fleet of sensor equipped ships versus non-sensor equipped ships and see whether there is 'better' targetting performance or not. Realize that better is NOT the actual number of ships targetted per turn, but perhaps by the 'quality' of the ships targetted, with more 'dangerous' ships targetted (and hopefully destroyed) before the 1kt chattel.

 

This is just a theory. But think. In any science fiction story with "realistic" portrayal of ship combat, aren't sensors important? How can any ship "see" its environment without external sensors? The short answer is that it can't. So, perhaps people have been so focused on getting high bridge ratings via computers that they have neglected the all important sensor. After all, you can have the maximum super uber computer but without reliable external input, what good is it? Also, why would there be so many sensor tech paths out there for people to research if they weren't useful? Bear in mind that there are Short, Medium and Long range sensors and it appears they all go up to at least Mk VI in level. The 'bridge' ratings are relatively low but maybe that's not their real use...

 

Sounds plausible to me. I always figured the justification for weapons not being able to target important ships was at long range all the enemy ships just looked like points of light.

 

All combat is a random selection of targets based on their defensive positions. What you are proposing is that Sensors in some fashion are an odds modifier. IE .. they in some fashion adjust the odds towards more desirable targets. So its not a tech we can directly control by saying "Shoot this first". But the odds of hitting the big capital ship are increased to some degree, with bigger increases for higher end techs.

 

Following that thought path, there are three levels of sensors (short, medium, long). This would tend to imply you need sensors on a ship to match it's weapon complement. A ship in position 12 with missels and fighters would need Long Range sensors to focus on targets correctly, while a ship in position 1 with point blank weapons would need short range. In other words you might need to mix the proper balance of FC with weapons and the proper sensors based on weapon type and where you place the ship in the fleet, in order to increase the odds of hitting the right targets. Heck, if the defenders position comes into play, you might need all three types on a ship to cover all distances.

 

Interesting theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that Pete said on the old boards when the game started that there was no difference between the short, medium and long range sensors apart from them opening up different new techpaths. Now if Pete has changed that I don't know but I don't think so.

 

Cheers

 

/Locklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that Pete said on the old boards when the game started that there was no difference between the short, medium and long range sensors apart from them opening up different new techpaths. Now if Pete has changed that I don't know but I don't think so.

 

Cheers

 

/Locklyn

 

 

I would expect Short. Medium and Long Range sensors to work the same, in the same way that Beam, Pulse and X-ray lasers all work the same - just different ratings and tech paths.

 

If sensors ARE used for targetting, they probably skew the random selection towards larger ships, with more sensor strength/mass in the fleet meaning its more likely that screens are ignored, at least until the capital ships are all gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along this line of thought, I think it is less the short, medium, long sensors but more the various Battle Display tech. For example, the beginning line of Holographic Battle Display says,

"Improves command-and-control during a space battle by displaying a three dimensional holographic view of all detected combatants. As a result, commanders are more fully able to coordinate their ships with other friendly vessels during the heat of battle..."

 

I believe and have long believed that these systems would allow commanders better 'control' of their targets so that the 2million plasma value will hit the 6 million ton BB instead of the 1000 ton piece of garbage. I think Locklyn is correct as to Pete's comment about the Short, Med, Long just allowing you various other techs (in addition to their stated puposes).

:P:taz::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...