Starfire without WP's?

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby freemale221g on Fri 15 Feb 2013 23:05

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:The problem with wp defense at higher levels isn't the fleet size per se. It's the limit on the number of ships that can transit a wp each turn. With a 6 ship limit the leading waves of an assault get toasted. SBMHAWKs help somewhat but only if you know what is on the other side.


Exactly, which is why I came up with the "Transit Datalink (Zt)" system which would allow you to have a group of ships to transit WPs as a single ship just like regular Datalink allows you to have a group of ships function and fire as a single ship in combat.


Dawn Falcon wrote:Well, my WZ's are not wormholes, they're points where the gravitational interactions of the two systems "line up", allowing ships to instantly travel between them :)

Hence, they rotate along with the system. (In practice, the rotation would not be synchronised, but Starfire already abstracts that one away)


Nice idea but for all of the extra paper work involved as you would have to have a way to keep track of the WZ's size (lenght & with), rotation distance per rotation, how often the WZ's line up and when, and of course the effects and hull size limitations that the WZ's produce if any involved. In the end the extra paper work would slow the game down even more and further overburden an already over large amount of paper work there already is.

I like WP's as they require very little record keeping just the radian and distance from the primary, whether they are open or closed, and hull size limitations if any are used and optionally if there are any special features if that is used. In my campaigns WP's do not have hull size limitations but do have special features like if they are stable or not and how the grav surge effects ships going through the WP and if any damage is caused. I still keep the 6 ship limit but with technology improvements to the engines and the previous transit technology that I mentioned above and variations there of, I am able to increase the number of ships I can transit within reason and with other technology from recon drones, SBMHAWKS, and others I have yet to have stagnations that have been mentioned. As long as you keep the WP hull size limits and the ship limit to 6 the way they are now you will have the stagnation problem.
User avatar
freemale221g
Shuttle Pilot
Shuttle Pilot
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2010 14:54

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Sat 16 Feb 2013 01:17

freemale221g wrote:I like WP's as they require very little record keeping just the radian and distance from the primary, whether they are open or closed, and hull size limitations if any are used and optionally if there are any special features if that is used. In my campaigns WP's do not have hull size limitations but do have special features like if they are stable or not and how the grav surge effects ships going through the WP and if any damage is caused. I still keep the 6 ship limit but with technology improvements to the engines and the previous transit technology that I mentioned above and variations there of, I am able to increase the number of ships I can transit within reason and with other technology from recon drones, SBMHAWKS, and others I have yet to have stagnations that have been mentioned. As long as you keep the WP hull size limits and the ship limit to 6 the way they are now you will have the stagnation problem.


I have to disagree with this final sentence. First of all, WP hull size limits really don't have much of any effect on WP stagnation that I can see. Up until around TL10 or so when MT's become available, less than 1 in 6 WP's have capacities of 100 HS in ISF. As for the second point, WP stagnation really isn't a problem before the arrival of mines and energy buoys, so it's not the 6 ship transit limit that's really the root cause of WP stagnation. It's the defensive technologies of mines and energy buoys.

Oh, I'll agree that increasing the number of ships that could transit WP's are somewhat of a counter to mines and buoys, but you can already get that with simultaneous transits. But the fact remains that mines, as they're intended to do, keep the attacker penned up on the WP, while the defenders are getting their ships activated and into combat range of the WP.

Of course, at this point in the process of a WP assault, there are some distinct differences between pure 3E, 3rdR, and Ultra/Solar in terms of the readiness states of the defending ships and when and how many of those defending ships are ready for combat. And those readiness states have a significant impact on the outcome of such battles.

In pure 3E, the defender might have upwards of 1/3 of his fleet at battlestations and fully ready for combat, which isn't good for the attacker. But later on in Ultra/Solar, the defender can have about 1/3 of his fleet at "general quarters", which is sort like being on alert, which means that they have can get activated for combat in 3 turns or less, while the other ships are at normal status and probably require 5 turns or less. But note that in Ultra/Solar, no ships are fully combat ready when the attacker first comes thru the WP, assuming that the attacker didn't send thru any pinnaces, etc. to recon the WP area and alert the defender that an attack might be coming (and thus allow the defender to start activating his ships). This difference between 3E and USF/SSF does create a window in which the attacker can get 2-3 turns worth of ships thru a WP before he sees significant numbers of activated defending units. However, it's worth noting that the value of this may depend greatly on the size of the fleets involved. If the fleets are generally small, then this difference can have a considerable effect. OTOH, if fleets are large, the defender will still probably have enough ships, even with this reduced rate of activation, to stop the attacker dead in his tracks.


Another point that's worth mentioning is the difference between 3E/3rdR and Ultra/Solar as it relates to mines and readiness. In 3E/3rdR, mines are always active. That's the intended design. They're meant to slow up the enemy from advancing into the system to give the defender time to get combat ready. In Ultra/Solar, buoys (all "mines" are buoys) cannot be active at all times, and can only be activated by an activated ship mounting an automated weapons control system. (Clearly, in USF/SSF, if you're going to invest heavily in defensive buoys, you'd also better be investing in automated weapons control systems to get those buoys activated ASAP.) This is clearly a significant different. It's also worth noting that the USF/SSF model runs counter to the canon history, which is not an insignificant point for me.

Anyways, that's all I have for now. Thanks for the post, freemale. I find it interesting that you don't use WP capacity limits in your campaigns. You're not the first person to say this, which makes me question the value of those WP capacity limits at all and whether they're worth the trouble.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Cralis on Sat 16 Feb 2013 01:50

Crucis wrote:Another point that's worth mentioning is the difference between 3E/3rdR and Ultra/Solar as it relates to mines and readiness. In 3E/3rdR, mines are always active. That's the intended design. They're meant to slow up the enemy from advancing into the system to give the defender time to get combat ready. In Ultra/Solar, buoys (all "mines" are buoys) cannot be active at all times, and can only be activated by an activated ship mounting an automated weapons control system. (Clearly, in USF/SSF, if you're going to invest heavily in defensive buoys, you'd also better be investing in automated weapons control systems to get those buoys activated ASAP.) This is clearly a significant different. It's also worth noting that the USF/SSF model runs counter to the canon history, which is not an insignificant point for me.


More importantly, in the Ultra/Solar version we don't have "minefields" that automatically attack when you enter the hex. This is IMHO vastly more important of a factor as the minefields in Classic could get so heavy that it was suicide to leave the WP hex and enter the MF until you has sufficient forces through the WP.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Sat 16 Feb 2013 02:12

Cralis wrote:
Crucis wrote:Another point that's worth mentioning is the difference between 3E/3rdR and Ultra/Solar as it relates to mines and readiness. In 3E/3rdR, mines are always active. That's the intended design. They're meant to slow up the enemy from advancing into the system to give the defender time to get combat ready. In Ultra/Solar, buoys (all "mines" are buoys) cannot be active at all times, and can only be activated by an activated ship mounting an automated weapons control system. (Clearly, in USF/SSF, if you're going to invest heavily in defensive buoys, you'd also better be investing in automated weapons control systems to get those buoys activated ASAP.) This is clearly a significant different. It's also worth noting that the USF/SSF model runs counter to the canon history, which is not an insignificant point for me.


More importantly, in the Ultra/Solar version we don't have "minefields" that automatically attack when you enter the hex. This is IMHO vastly more important of a factor as the minefields in Classic could get so heavy that it was suicide to leave the WP hex and enter the MF until you has sufficient forces through the WP.


True, though it's worth noting that in 3rdR (not sure about pure 3E), a reason why minefields get so large is that you pay no maintenance on them, as well as being allowed to use the CFN to lay mines, rather than needing dedicated minelayers, as in pure 3E, which tends to limit the rate at which minefields grow, since you need to have minelayers in the vicinity of the WP to be mined or build new ones, as well as a supply of mines nearby.

And yes , 3E mines do attack you when you enter their tac hex and can often be rather suicidal to enter a heavily mined hex, which is why I mentioned that their general purpose tends to more be about hindering movement than in causing damage, since choosing to enter a known minefield is a conscious decision.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby tmul4050 on Sun 17 Feb 2013 07:10

Unless you are entering a closed Wp, and you have not transited before. Not likely I suppose but possible (and a horrible suprise :shock: ). Its possible it would be considered a black hole and allow a sneak attack at some point. :D
Sorry just thinkong out load so to speak
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Sun 17 Feb 2013 12:39

tmul4050 wrote:Unless you are entering a closed Wp, and you have not transited before. Not likely I suppose but possible (and a horrible suprise :shock: ). Its possible it would be considered a black hole and allow a sneak attack at some point. :D
Sorry just thinking out loud so to speak


No, you're correct, though unless the empire is extremely paranoid, I can't see mining a WP that leads to someone you haven't yet made contact with, assuming you even know there's someone on the other side.

And yes, if you exit a closed WP, it could be directly into a minefield and the ship could be destroyed before it could send a warning back thru the WP. In fact, there are any number of possibilities which could cause a transiting ship to be instantly destroyed... a black hole, a WP inside a star's corona, a WP in a particularly dense asteroid belt (think Thebes). And probably some others. This is one of the reasons why I've never thought of the "black hole" star system result in sysgen as a real system because there's never any confirmation. So I tend to think of the "black hole" system as being more metaphorical than astronomical. That is, the system could be any of the possible alternatives which could completely and instantly destroy a star ship, not just an astronomical black hole.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Wed 15 May 2013 00:36

Heads up!!!

I've split off all of the current ongoing discussion about Jump drives, mines, automated weapons, swarms, and hull costs, etc. into a thread by that same subject.

And now I'm going to lock this thread since no one's posted anything truly on topic in a long time. I anyone really wants to talk about Starfire without WP's, I suggest starting a new thread.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Previous

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron