ECM and ECCM: How they work!! :) [Archive]

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 01:10 AM

Ok, first ECM:

It jams your enemy's targetting computer (well, if they don't have ECCM...). Oh, and it also stacks... so, the more ECM in a task force, the better chance that your opponent will not have enough ECCM to counter it. Also, higher level ECM tech is more effective then lower. Try putting ECM's on all your ships in a task force, and watch your enemy's ship behavior. 1) Missiles will fire, and follow your ship around, but never actually hit it!! 2) Same goes for fighters... 3) Your enemy's beam weapons won't fire either!! It totally incapacitates your enemy's fleet, if they do not use ECCM.

Now to ECCM: It counters ECM. It also stacks, and higher levels are more effective.

So, let's say I have a long-range attack flottilla... and all my ships have ECM level 1, and I have 5 ships in my task force. That takes 5 levels of ECCM to over come and counter. So unless the enemy has more ECCM's on his ships... he's pretty much a sitting duck!! If you don't believe me, try it!! :) :D :)

Flinx

07-05-2003, 02:47 AM

....And you know all this how?

Ron_Lugge

07-05-2003, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Flinx
....And you know all this how?

I think he's teasing me (Posted a link in my mod's thread when I commented I didn't know how the stealth system worked)

Vallis

07-05-2003, 04:45 AM

Zanzibar is mostly correct, I believe, but I thought I would elaborate on how sensors, ECM, ECCM and cloaking work with some numbers. First of all, I will list all of these technology's vital statistics from the TechTables:

Focus Detection Array: OffTgtRg *= 0.85
High-Caliber Detection System: OffTgtRg *= 0.79
X-Ray Transponder System: OffTgtRg *= 0.63
Advanced Locator System: OffTgtRg *= 0.46
Ultimate Detection System: OffTgtRg *= 0.25

ECM I: DefTgtRg *= 1.12
ECM II: DefTgtRg *= 1.17
ECM III: DefTgtRg *= 1.33
ECM IV: DefTgtRg *= 1.6
ECM V: DefTgtRg *= 2.2

ECCM I: OffTgtRg *= 0.87
ECCM II: OffTgtRg *= 0.81
ECCM III: OffTgtRg *= 0.67
ECCM IV: OffTgtRg *= 0.5
ECCM V: OffTgtRg *= 0.3

Cloaking Device: DefTgtRg *= 2.2, Cloaking *= 1.5
Phased Cloaking Device: DefTgtRg *= 3.3, Cloaking *= 1.8
Reactive Cloaking Device: DefTgtRg *= 4.95, Cloaking *= 3
Ghost Device: DefTgtRg *= 7.425, Cloaking *= 7.425

Now, in the Technology Matrix during a game of MOO3, we are told that sensors and ECCM (Electronic Counter Counter Measures) "decrease sensor range factor". Bothy these technologies are multipliers (as indicated by the * in the stats above) for a variable called OffTgtRg (Offense Target Range). Because the values for these modifiers are less than one, they will, in fact, reduce the value they modify.

The technology matrix also tells us that ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) and cloaking devices "increase ECM range factor". Both these technologies modify (by increasing) a variable called DefTgtRg (Defense Target Range). The cloaking device also has a stat called Cloaking, which makes the ship more difficult to detect on the main galaxy map. I won't go into any more detail on that, as it is fairly self explanitory.

So, the better your fleet's sensors and ECCM are, the lower the Offense Target Range becomes. The better your fleet's cloaking devices and ECM are, the higher the Defense Target Range becomes. So what do these two values do?

Somewhere in the hard code of the game, there is a base value that defines how close an enemy task force must to one of your task forces, before it is detected. This number represents a distance, on the combat screen. We will call it the Base Target Distance. A ship with sensors and/or ECCM will have an Offense Target Range value, which modifies (and reduces) the Base Target Distance for that ship's attacks. A ship with a cloaking device and/or ECM will have a Defense Target Range value, which modifies (and increases) the Base Target Distance for the opponent's ship's attacks.

So, how close a ship must be to detect, and therefore target, an enemy ship is equal to the Base Target Distance X that ship's Sensor OffTgtRg X that ship's ECCM OffTgtRg X the target ship's cloaking DefTgtRg X the target ship's ECM DefTgtRg. I do not know to what extent these technologies are cumulitive. I am also assuming that these effects occur on a ship to ship bases, though it is possible that they work on a task force to task force basis, or perhaps the Defense Target Range stats affect hte entire battlefield. I feel that it is most likely calculated on a ship top ship bases, but if a ship can be detected and targeted, the entire task force that ship is in can be targeted by all its opponent's task forces!

Therefore, long range attack task forces need ships (probably recon ships in the scouting ring) with good sensors and ECCM to take advantage of their range bonus. Giving them good ECM and cloaking, along with good speed, can keep them safe from enemy fire. Short range attack ships may not need such good sensors or ECCM, but the defensive techs may keep them from getting shot up so much as they approach their targets. It might also be beneficial to build fast recon task forces, or send out fighters, whose only purpose is to make enemy ships visable!

As an aside, it is interesting to note that originally, these four technologies all did something different from each other (as opposed to sensors and ECCM being the same, as well as cloaking and ECM being the same). In the Modiers spreadsheet, their are two variables that are no longer in use: OffSptRg and DefSptRg. These are Offense and Defense Spot Range. Presumably, sensors and cloaking devices were originally going to determine the distance at which you would be able to see your enemy, and ECM and ECCM would determine the distance at which you could target them. Now, if you can see your foe, you can target your foe (or perhaps the distance at which you can target your enemy is just a few Gm closer than the distance at which you can see him) Why this was dropped from the game, I do not know.

Da_Blade

07-05-2003, 09:07 AM

Oh and on an aside:

All that can be stacked, can stack (ECM, ECCM, Sensors). Visiual detection of TF B by TF A is established if the best recon ship in TF A can see the most easilydetected ship in TF B.

So if TF B is a fleet consists of 5 Leviathans all loaded up with cloaking devices and ECM's and one leviathan without, it is as easily seen as a task force consisting of 6 leviathans without ECM's and sensors. So if you want to cloak a taskforce, make sure EVERY ship in the TF has sufficient cloaking.

Beamup

07-05-2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Vallis
Zanzibar is mostly correct, I believe, but I thought I would elaborate on how sensors, ECM, ECCM and cloaking work with some numbers.

I find it amusing that you say this and then explain a system that has virtually no similarity to his claims.

Oh, and Zanzibar - when something is widely believed to work one way, on the basis of info from QSI, and you claim it does something totally different... you really need to provide some sort of evidence for your claims if you want anyone to take you seriously.

the oob

07-05-2003, 11:01 AM

At the moment, I'm assuming anything in ship design which allows you to have multiple of it (ecm, eccm, focus detection arrays, etc.) is stackable (ie. > 1 is better than 1). As opposed to things like 'crew quarters' which the game does not allow you to have multiple of, because additional crew quarters would be useless anyway.

This is a tautology so far according to my knowledge of ship design.

Vallis

07-05-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Beamup
I find it amusing that you say this and then explain a system that has virtually no similarity to his claims.

:eek: . . . . . . :weird: . . . . . . :p

It is, isn't it. Actually, when I first read zanzibar's post, I thought that this was what he was saying, for the most part. He basically said that ECM makes it harder for your enemy to target you, and ECCM counters that. This is essentialy correct, if not vague. What I missed is his last paragraph, in which he claims that if you have more ECM in your task force than your opponent has ECCM, he cannot shoot at you, period. That is most certainly incorrect! Sorry zanzibar. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by the oob
At the moment, I'm assuming anything in ship design which allows you to have multiple of it (ecm, eccm, focus detection arrays, etc.) is stackable (ie. > 1 is better than 1). As opposed to things like 'crew quarters' which the game does not allow you to have multiple of, because additional crew quarters would be useless anyway.

I have often wondered if putting two or more ECM's on the same ship would have any more effect than putting one on. I suspect that it does not, and that the ability to do this stems from the fact that some items in the Special Menu are cumulitive on a single ship (i.e: troop pods, scout labs). They certainly could be, though, and I would be most interested in knowing for sure.

Phezzan

07-05-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Vallis
the Base Target Distance X that ship's Sensor OffTgtRg X that ship's ECCM OffTgtRg X the target ship's cloaking DefTgtRg X the target ship's ECM DefTgtRg

Hmm...
Shouldn't this be
Base / (Sensors(OffTgtRg) X ECCM(OffTgtRg) X enemyCloak(DefTgtRg) X enemyECM(DefTgtRg) )

Otherwise sensors would be bad and enemy ECCM would be good... Or maybe it's too early and I need coffee...

Phez

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Flinx
....And you know all this how?

From actually playing the game!! And using ECM on my ships! *duh*

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
I find it amusing that you say this and then explain a system that has virtually no similarity to his claims.

Oh, and Zanzibar - when something is widely believed to work one way, on the basis of info from QSI, and you claim it does something totally different... you really need to provide some sort of evidence for your claims if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Dude... play a game. Put ECM on all your ships... observe the behavior of missiles, fighters, and such in space combat. Enough said.

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Vallis
:eek: . . . . . . :weird: . . . . . . :p

It is, isn't it. Actually, when I first read zanzibar's post, I thought that this was what he was saying, for the most part. He basically said that ECM makes it harder for your enemy to target you, and ECCM counters that. This is essentialy correct, if not vague. What I missed is his last paragraph, in which he claims that if you have more ECM in your task force than your opponent has ECCM, he cannot shoot at you, period. That is most certainly incorrect! Sorry zanzibar. :rolleyes:

Given that the opponent's ECCM level is the same as yours, this is actually correct. Try it in space combat, if you don't believe me... Missiles and fighters will swarm your task forces, but never hit them...

I have often wondered if putting two or more ECM's on the same ship would have any more effect than putting one on. I suspect that it does not, and that the ability to do this stems from the fact that some items in the Special Menu are cumulitive on a single ship (i.e: troop pods, scout labs). They certainly could be, though, and I would be most interested in knowing for sure.

Yes more ECM (or ECCM's) on a ship have a cumulative effect... it's called a stacking bonus... play around with it in the game, instead of reading spreadsheets and see for yourself.

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 01:17 PM

Ron_Lugge

07-05-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by zanzibar
From actually playing the game!! And using ECM on my ships! *duh*

*Sigh* No wonder it was so ill-thought out. Go chekc out some of Visage's threads - you'll be amazed by what he does (I know *I* am)!

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
*Sigh* No wonder it was so ill-thought out. Go chekc out some of Visage's threads - you'll be amazed by what he does (I know *I* am)!

Whatever... :rolleyes: Why not stop reading spreadsheets, and actually attempt to play the game??

Ron_Lugge

07-05-2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by zanzibar
Whatever... :rolleyes: Why not stop reading spreadsheets, and actually attempt to play the game??

why not actually prove yourself in a demostratable, repeatable manner?

Flinx

07-05-2003, 02:56 PM

Well since the data in the spreadsheets actually tell the game how to behave, reading them is quite useful.

Also, considering at least as many people have had different in game experiences from yours as people who have had the same experiences you have had, it is not clear to the rest of us that you are correct in everything you have said.

A scientist can claim he has reproduced a cold fusion experiment several times, but if another independent person cannot get the same results, people question the initial claims.

Azariel

07-05-2003, 03:49 PM

Although there seems to a relatively exact model of ECM and ECCM there are still some questions left.
P.e. do Sensors really stack? I tried to verify this in about 10 experiments, and coudn't see any difference when attacking the enemy with ships with one ultimate detector or 10. (i used two ships, each one turn a way from the same enemy planet, attack, check the distance when the enemy is detected, try again)
Also there might be the possibility to stack cloaking devices by putting one of each kind on a single ship. I'd test this, but it's virtually impossible in SP and although i have two comps with MOO3 availabe (and an otherwise working LAN) they just won't meet in a MOO3 multiplayer game. :mad:

Beamup

07-05-2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by zanzibar
Dude... play a game. Put ECM on all your ships... observe the behavior of missiles, fighters, and such in space combat. Enough said.

Been there, done that, bears absolutely no resemblance to what you claim. Come off it already, you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what you are talking about.

Da_Blade

07-05-2003, 04:21 PM

Relax people, zanzibar clearly started this as a joke, a bad one i might add, don't know what he considered fun in it, but don't get yourselves hyped up over it...

Vallis

07-05-2003, 04:50 PM

Blaze

07-05-2003, 05:01 PM

Zanzibar, is this tested through single, or MP, cause w/ the MP sync lag, this behavior is quite prevelent, but I haven't seen what you describe in any SP games.

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
why not actually prove yourself in a demostratable, repeatable manner?

It is quite repeatable if you actually play a game, and go into space combat... geez... how hard can that be?? :rolleyes:

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Blaze
Zanzibar, is this tested through single, or MP, cause w/ the MP sync lag, this behavior is quite prevelent, but I haven't seen what you describe in any SP games.

Hrmmm... didn't know there was a difference. Well, since I almost always play moo 3 MP... I guess there's your answer. This is the behavior of ECM in MP games. (And no, it's not a joke...)

Skymage

07-05-2003, 07:05 PM

Looking at the numbers that Vallis posted it appears that Zanzibar is mostly correct.

It is my belief that ECM, ECCM, and Sensors do NOT affect whether or not you can ‘see’ a target. It appears as if weapon efficiency IS affected. Most weapons degrade the further away the target is, Higher ECM and cloaking will cause the target to appear further away thus causing less damage.

I would also assume that all modifiers are Task Force based, since all weapon fire and targeting appear to be taskforce-to-taskforce.

Considering the short range of fighter weapons, and considering the inherent lag of MP games, it’s quite possible to see this. By the time the fighters fire, the effective range is now beyond the effective range of the fighters weapons, and therefor 0 damage. Note: I play SP and have not seen this firsthand.

I have seen this in other game systems (most notably Star Fleet Battles) where electronic warfare affects weapon efficiency only.

SkyMage

zanzibar

07-05-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Skymage
Looking at the numbers that Vallis posted it appears that Zanzibar is mostly correct.

It is my belief that ECM, ECCM, and Sensors do NOT affect whether or not you can ‘see’ a target. It appears as if weapon efficiency IS affected. Most weapons degrade the further away the target is, Higher ECM and cloaking will cause the target to appear further away thus causing less damage.

I would also assume that all modifiers are Task Force based, since all weapon fire and targeting appear to be taskforce-to-taskforce.

Considering the short range of fighter weapons, and considering the inherent lag of MP games, it’s quite possible to see this. By the time the fighters fire, the effective range is now beyond the effective range of the fighters weapons, and therefor 0 damage. Note: I play SP and have not seen this firsthand.

I have seen this in other game systems (most notably Star Fleet Battles) where electronic warfare affects weapon efficiency only.

SkyMage

Exactly!! Now you know, in MP games, if you don't want your ships to be damaged, use ECM!! It's the uber tech! ;)

Da_Blade

07-05-2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by zanzibar
Exactly!! Now you know, in MP games, if you don't want your ships to be damaged, use ECM!! It's the uber tech! ;)

Especially when you play against zanzibar, i think you'll make him very happy! ;)

Blaze

07-05-2003, 08:45 PM

Zan, this sync lag is also very prevelent w/ ships that have no ECM. It's possible that it's more noticable because of the bug, but I have no first hand accounting of this. I do know that there are periods upwards of 40 sec w/ no firing on my 56k modem. And I don't use cloaking or ECM.

visage

07-05-2003, 08:54 PM

Flinx

07-05-2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Vallis
...but if it were up to me, the game would calculate the Actual Target Distance as follows:

TempVariable = ECCM(OffTgtRg) X enemyECM(DefTgtRg)

if (TempVariable < 1), then TempVariable = 1

Actual Target Distance = Base Target Distance X Sensors(OffTgtRg) X enemyCloak(DefTgtRg) X TempVariable)

This programming method would prevent Electronic Counter Counter Measures from having any effect other than reducing or eliminating the effects of Electronic Counter Measures. That is, a ship with good ECCM would not be able to target an enemy that lacks ECM any better than it could without the ECCM.This is logical.

neatstuff

07-05-2003, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by visage
Go and test your belief. I used to share it.

I've tested this very thoroughly (look for the Armor/Shields thread for many of my reports) and eventually convinced myself that I was wrong, that ECM/ECCM/Cloaking/Sensors had zero impact on accuracy and damage dropoff.

I've come to a conclusion similar to this. Granted, I have not been adequately systematic in my tests, but I have seen the same disconcerting trend.
Enemy fleets appear at nearly the same distance with little apparent regard to sensor loads. Enemy fleets detect my ships with similar apparent disregard to the ECM loadouts of my designs, (I am aware that the lowest ECM bonus is used, so I don't vary the number of ECM units on my ships.)

The only time I've really seen anything close to what is the supposed behavior of ECM and Cloaking is when I load my ships with one of each cloak and with 20 or more of Sensor Vs.

Unfortunately, the results are mostly a wash. Perhaps 3 out of 5 combats show my ships escaping notice for any appreciable time, and about 3/5 of the time am I able to see enemy ships at a distance beyond close range.

I am unable to see any apparent effect without going to extremes on sensors and jamming.

MooMaster

07-06-2003, 01:16 AM

so here we have zanzibar saying it is the Uber tech and neatstuff saying it is all but useless.

can anyone back up either position with some good evidence?

Bhruic

07-06-2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Vallis
This programming method would prevent Electronic Counter Counter Measures from having any effect other than reducing or eliminating the effects of Electronic Counter Measures. That is, a ship with good ECCM would not be able to target an enemy that lacks ECM any better than it could without the ECCM.

Unfortunately, that would not be an optimal solution. Currently, the "scanning" techs (the focus/detection systems/arrays) use the exact same "OffTgtRg" that ECCM use. Unlike ECCM, they should actually increase the scannable range. But because they use the same value, there would be no way to "programatically" make such a distinction.

Bh

Iskabis

07-06-2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by MooMaster
so here we have zanzibar saying it is the Uber tech and neatstuff saying it is all but useless.

can anyone back up either position with some good evidence?
technically, zanzibar only said it was good in MP. neatstuff is talking about SP, so they really aren't conflicting. technically, anyway......

-rhyssan

Vallis

07-06-2003, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Phezzan
Hmm...
Shouldn't this be
Base / (Sensors(OffTgtRg) X ECCM(OffTgtRg) X enemyCloak(DefTgtRg) X enemyECM(DefTgtRg) )

Otherwise sensors would be bad and enemy ECCM would be good... Or maybe it's too early and I need coffee...
Originally posted by Vallis
It sounds like you could use a cup o' joe.

The five values should be multiplied together:

Actual Target Distance = Base Target Distance X Sensors(OffTgtRg) X ECCM(OffTgtRg) X enemyCloak(DefTgtRg) X enemyECM(DefTgtRg)

Remember, the values for 'OffTgtDs' are always between 0 and 1, so they reduce the distance (i.e., 5000 Gm X 0.5 = 2500 Gm). The values for the 'DefTgtDs' are always greater than 1, so the target's cloaking and ECCM increase the Target Distance.

:eek: What am I talking about! :eek:

If Actual Target Distance represents that distance at which a ship is able to target an enemy, and good sensors reduce this distance, then a ship with good sensors would have to get closer to his target in able to hit it! That's rediculis!

Thanks Phezzan! Gee, I'm really surprised no one else called me on that. Yes Phezzan, your formula would work to fix this problem, and you could think of it that way, but it is unlikely QSI would have made techs that improve sensors have a value from 0 to 1, and techs that cloak ships have a value above 1 (as opposed to the other way around), unless these values reflected some meaning. That is, the sensors and ECCM reduce some value, and cloaking devices and ECM increase that value. I feel the formula used by the game is probably a five values multiplied together, for why would QSI make a variable less than 1, and then devide some constant by that variable in order to increase the constant? It is just less intuitive.

Therefore, I would like to redefine Actual Target Distance as the radius around the target ship at which it cannot be targeted. Now, cloaking and ECM enlarge this "Actual Hiding Radius", and sensors and ECCM make it smaller.

Which ever way you want to think about it, the effects are the same.

:rolleyes: Oh, and Phezzan . . . . . could I have that coffee back? I think I'm the one who needs it, after all.

Vallis

07-06-2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Bhruic
Unfortunately, that would not be an optimal solution. Currently, the "scanning" techs (the focus/detection systems/arrays) use the exact same "OffTgtRg" that ECCM use. Unlike ECCM, they should actually increase the scannable range. But because they use the same value, there would be no way to "programatically" make such a distinction.

Bruic, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. There are ways to have the same variable from different 'objects' (the different techs) have different effects in a computer program. I gave in example of one:

TempVariable = ECCM(OffTgtRg) X enemyECM(DefTgtRg)

if (TempVariable < 1), then TempVariable = 1

Actual Target Distance = Base Target Distance X Sensors(OffTgtRg) X enemyCloak(DefTgtRg) X TempVariable)

Could you please elaborate on your idea, for as I said, I'm not sure I'm clear on what you meant. Thanks.

Buggerthis

07-06-2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by MooMaster
so here we have zanzibar saying it is the Uber tech and neatstuff saying it is all but useless.

can anyone back up either position with some good evidence?

Well, I tried it, no dice. In my current SP game I skipped BB hulls since I got a bit of industry tech ramping up in my core worlds. This left my older planets and many of my recent captured planets handling the DN production, but some of my developing worlds too small to produce DNs in a reasonable amount of time. So I popped up a BB design they could handle in SR with Phase Cloak, some ECM IV and Hellfires. Sailed 7 of them into battle and got crunched handily. Nothing missed. I'll play with it a bit longer (like get to a full armada of them) but otherwise I'll just slot the BBs into other TFs and be done with it.

Personally, I think the whole cloaking/ECM/ECCM/Sensor line is mostly useless in SP with the visibility issues anyway. I keep putting some on my Recon ships, but watching things like:

AI TFs getting swarmed by my fighters or hammered by my beam TFs just fade out of sight while moving closer;

Missile/fighter salvos coming in to almost on top of my fleet, taking fire from my TFs, fading and then hammering home without further PD fire (resembling the PD bug);

Going for a draw with a LR TF (running like heck ;) ) and watching AI TFs appear and disappear without having their fighters come swarming after me, while I have zero ECM/cloaking and they are higher tech then I am;

TFs refusing to fire at certain targets that are visible and closer range (ships and missile/fighter groups) unless manually targeted (think is visibility and the grossly stupid ship/TF mission issue).

These count against the idea of 'operating as intended'. I've built Recon ships stuffed full of ECCM/Sensors and armed Recon ships with one or two of them. No difference that I can see. Stuff fades and appears almost randomly. Not scientific, not tested, just what I'm watching fighting battles over and over again, mainly to keep that one full speed LR TF from running its silly arse out to get toasted by the enemy fleet during planet defenses.

There are still some issues in combat that need to be fixed. It is becoming a PITA to have to designate every ship design as LR (with only my name codes telling me what the mission is) just so I can be assured of getting fire off initially.

Da_Blade

07-06-2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Vallis
Could you please elaborate on your idea, for as I said, I'm not sure I'm clear on what you meant. Thanks.

What he ment was, which i ment to post too hadn;t he done it before, is that if sensor OffTgRg and ECCM have the same OffTgRg, it is quite safe to assume they do the exact same thing.

In your example you have to collect the OffTgRg from ECCM's first, then make the tempvalue, then get the OffTgRg's from sensors.

It would be a lot "cheaper" (and you want cheaper in a PC game) to just give the ECCM's a different variable and simply incorporating this variable in the final formula.

Also, if any players mod in a new tech that affects OffTgRg it has to be specified wether you mean the OffTgRg from ECCM of the OffTgRg of sensors. Using the same name for two different variables is possible, but very bad form and besides the HIGH risk of errors also more expensive. Since QSI has good experience in programming, i highly doubt they would use the same variable for two different things :)

Azariel

07-06-2003, 10:59 AM

After a bit more SP testing i tend to think the problem is due to bad balance.
Try it, send in two TF's, one a Leviathan, one a BB. pack the same amount of cloaking on both of them.
Or try two TF's, one a Armade, the other a detachment.
You will get noticeable results.
I suppose the modifiers to cloakig, applied because of Size and number are much greater than the modifiers for cloaking devices, rendering those useless.

Da_Blade

07-06-2003, 11:05 AM

Just like to remind all to my old thread here (http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=286401&highlight=ecm+eccm).

Where i also explain the fact numbers have great influence on visibility. But cloaking does certainly have effect on armada's, though a cloaked squadron can get MUCH closer without detection. This is why some use small cloaked recon task forces with reasonable success to scout out enemy's.

Buggerthis

07-06-2003, 11:14 AM

Might be a personal preference then (i.e. - firepower rules), since I tend to have an obsolete beam TF around to send in if I happen not to be able to aquire a target initially. It not only can scout, it can deal out some decent damage. After all, I have yet to lose a battle in any game by having too much firepower. :haha:

But, I still have those planets to play with, so I'll see what kind of tiny ship I can build with one super long range beam and see if I can set up sniper squadrons. If sufficiently agile, that actually might be more interesting than trying to build a shoot 'n scoot crowd.

Skymage

07-06-2003, 05:54 PM

Da_Blade

07-06-2003, 06:14 PM

What can't be seen cannot be shot at, that's basically the system in use now. Despite the bug, cloaking and sensors have quite an effect, especially for long range weapons, which cannot be fired without a target. Even if it were only for the start-combat effects i would recommend it. When you start on the map cloaked, you have time to organize your fleets nicely before going into battle.

And i provided test results for the stacking of ECMs on ship-to-ship basis only, not TF. The fact that recon ships provide eyes and recon for every ship in the taskforce does not only come from experience but was also confirmed by QSI (outside these forums).

Skymage

07-06-2003, 06:28 PM

The question then is "Does ECM/ECCM affect just the ship it's on, or the entire TF?"

SkyMage

Da_Blade

07-06-2003, 06:35 PM

ECM only affects the ship it's on, ECCM affects the whole TF, IF stacked on ONE single ship, 4 ECCM's on 4 different ships have no more effect then only 1 ship with 1 ECCM, 1 ship with 4 ECCM's affect the whole TF a lot more.

Ron_Lugge

07-06-2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Skymage
The question then is "Does ECM/ECCM affect just the ship it's on, or the entire TF?"

SkyMage

My preference is to phrase it this way:

Detection is your ship with the highest ECCM Vs. their ship with the weakest ECM. If you win, you see and can target the TF.

tiger00

07-06-2003, 10:15 PM

well said ron.

but has anyone seen any proof of this? I've tried stacking multiple ECCMs, used cloaking and ECM on all my ships, and yet the apperance of enemy TFs still seem random

visage

07-06-2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Da_Blade
And i provided test results for the stacking of ECMs on ship-to-ship basis only, not TF. The fact that recon ships provide eyes and recon for every ship in the taskforce does not only come from experience but was also confirmed by QSI (outside these forums).

Where? The thread you pointed to seems to be just speculation...

Bhruic, what do the savefiles say?

Buggerthis

07-06-2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by tiger00
well said ron.

but has anyone seen any proof of this? I've tried stacking multiple ECCMs, used cloaking and ECM on all my ships, and yet the apperance of enemy TFs still seem random

I agree. I haven't done it after the patching, but before any patch, I could reload a game over and over again and get the enemy all over the place in battle, sometimes visible, sometimes not. Maybe I need more techs. Stealthed BBs died, a pair of stealthed DDs (phase cloak, ECMIV, one Imp Spinal Dark Beam) died to some carrier system ships long before I could come into range. From what I've read, what I need is small TFs with small ships piled high with cloaking/ECM. The problem is that small ships stuffed full of stealth don't do squat. Weaponless Recon ships of BB size stuffed full of ECCM still let missiles fade out just before they get into weapons range and hammer home without defensive fire. (On a side note, carrier and IF TF weapon crews are still sleeping when they should be on PD duty.)

What works best for me (in SP)? Cram weapon systems aboard, to heck with the stealth, leave a couple of detectors on your Recon while stripping the rest off for weapons and if you still cannot see the enemy, send in a beam TF. Yah, I could send in a stealthed beam TF, but I'll take one with more firepower. Ok, I do think the 2x stealthed DDs got closer than an unstealthed DN armada, but it didn't matter since they died horribly before they got close enough to fire once. :rolleyes: At least the DN Armada gets to get some licks in. :D

Now if I can figure out a way to keep beam TFs from playing Charge of the Light Brigade in defensive situation without stripping of the speed they need for offensives I'll be much happier.

Blaze

07-07-2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Buggerthis
<snip>
(On a side note, carrier and IF TF weapon crews are still sleeping when they should be on PD duty.)
<snip>
Now if I can figure out a way to keep beam TFs from playing Charge of the Light Brigade in defensive situation without stripping of the speed they need for offensives I'll be much happier.
Take a look at my space battle mechanics guide, it might help. Also if you want more info about non-controlled battles check out visages guide, there's a link at the bottom of my guide. My link is in my sig.

Da_Blade

07-07-2003, 07:53 AM

I DID test this quite a while ago in a quite simple way:

i designed 3 Battleship size ships, one fully equipped with ECM's, one with no ECM's (empty) and one with only one ECM.

I then made three taskforces of equal size: one with only single-equipped ECM's. Then another TF with one ship full of ECM's and then empty ships to make equal TF size. And lastly one without any ECM's at all. The first two TFs had an equal amount of ECM across the TF (spread across ships in one TF, stacked on one ship on the other).

I then flew them toward the planet with only a planetary base (to only have one, fixed, enemy detection point). The TF with the single stacked ECM ship and the one without ECMs would consistantly be spotted BEFORE the one with spread ECM would, i did this over and over again (about 5 times iirc).

This provided enough proof for me to be convinced. Oh and i DID post the results back then, but apparantly noone picked up on it.

synchro_w

07-08-2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Da_Blade

<sthnip!>

I then flew them toward the planet with only a planetary base (to only have one, fixed, enemy detection point). The TF with the single stacked ECM ship and the one without ECMs would consistantly be spotted BEFORE the one with spread ECM would, i did this over and over again (about 5 times iirc).

This provided enough proof for me to be convinced. Oh and i DID post the results back then, but apparantly noone picked up on it.

dog****e!! this is NOT what i wanted to hear. no no no no no! i always cram a single ship with ECCMs and another with ECM in a single TF...

blade? what if i crammed ECM/ECCMs into just a few ships per TF? i mean, a TF of 20 ships with , say, 5 with single ECMs? have you tried this out? it sounds like maybe the SIZE of the TF has an effect on how well the ECM works? no. this doesn't tally with the spreadsheets.

also, is this assuming that planetary bases have zero detection system, ECM, ECCMs?

arghh!!!! why haven't QS come up with the goods on this?!?! the manual is next to useless.

i'm gonna make a request as i figure this is bloody important.
i was gonna ask about targeting ensors but i think i proly should start a new thread or summat.

thanks
das

Ron_Lugge

07-08-2003, 03:20 AM

I think we're overlooking something here. If stealth could be done by a single ship for a whole TF, then they would have made a mission out of it. As it is, you have the "stealth" tab, which adds stealth equipment to a ship and describes it as stealthy...

I'd say thats a sign that stealth is done per-ship.

adamfostas

07-08-2003, 08:20 AM

Quick question: does anyone know if QSI are going to fix the detection bug? Because all this is rather irrelevant if they don't, since my lovely human LR fleets will still be cut to ribbons by a single Ithkul SR TF that they can't see unless they run away from it... Call me nearsighted, but surely you should be able to see a fleet closer to you more easily than one further away?

zanzibar

07-08-2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
I'd say thats a sign that stealth is done per-ship.

Yes, but technically, ECM and Stealth are not the same things... ECM is computer jamming, Stealth is bending light waves around a ship...

Beamup

07-08-2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by zanzibar
Yes, but technically, ECM and Stealth are not the same things... ECM is computer jamming, Stealth is bending light waves around a ship...

IRL they aren't the same thing, but in-game they are. Though cloaking devices do have another effect too (harder to see on galaxy map).

synchro_w

07-08-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
I think we're overlooking something here. If stealth could be done by a single ship for a whole TF, then they would have made a mission out of it. As it is, you have the "stealth" tab, which adds stealth equipment to a ship and describes it as stealthy...

I'd say thats a sign that stealth is done per-ship.

i thought it was a given that cloaked TFs do need a cloaker per ship. oh i see... you're implying that the same should be said for ECM/ECCM maybe? but if you have a device that can scramble.... mmm... you have a point here. i was assuming that in a TF there's no possible way you can get multiples of ECM on every ship and the design AI creates a recon ship with 5 ECCMs but rarely puts more than one on other ships [i can't recall - damn my memory! - but i think sometimes you get SR LtCruisers, and bigger, with a single ECCM selected.... or is that ECM? i'll have to check this out... perhaps the AI ship design can give us a clue as to how the ECCM/ECM/sensors should be used per TF?]

i'm just worried that my TFs with one or two ECCM/ECM ships are actually worthless. they have 3 or 4 PD weapons, but that's it.

mmm.. lemme see now...

there are 2 TFs sitting opposite each other. enemies.
one - TF 'A' - has sensors [didn't moo2 have targ sensors that impr'd individual ships fire accuracy? isn't that what FDA or XRT does?...sorry...]. they are at short range.

the other - TF 'B' - has nothing. just ship's stuff. oh, and a guy with a pair of binoculars sitting on top of his 'recon' ship.

TF 'A' uses its sensors and can see TF 'B'.
<so, sensors like 'focus detection array' do nothing except to 'see' the enemy ships... um... right?> a small dot on the sensor screen.

TF 'B''s guy with the binocs sees missiles coming in from a distance but sees no ships. the missiles hit ... damage.

TF 'B' has a guy who comes up with - magically - a box that should stop those missiles. he calls it ECM. the ECM puts lots of dots on TF 'A''s sensor screen so that now they can't tell whcih dot is the enemy TF. the missiles stop.

<questions: does the use of ECM require sensors to work? perhaps they are just so much electronic scrap w/o sensors? surely ECM is useless w/o sensors? or is that just too silly? it might explain why there are so many varying reports on the effects of ECM/ECCM?>

TF 'A' can now only see lots of dots on the sensors screen. which one is the enemy TF?
then some guy magically produces a box <ECCM>. he switches it on and there is now only one dot. the enemy dot. missiles away.

<questions: will a second ECM in TF 'B' stop the ECCM from working? or can this only be done by having the next level of ECM? maybe if each ship in TF 'B' had one ECM each then this would work to over ride the ECCM? - please assume everythin here is at level one for simplicity's sake.>

i read somewhere - prolly visage's threads - that ECCM is only needed on one ship - a per TF device.
but that ECM is like the cloaker... one per ship.
or should that be the other way around.

<please forgive the childlike approach but i am so bogged down in so many different ideas on what sensors/ecm/eccm do that i needed to clarify things for myself and hopefully for others like me who rarely make sense of what is in the spreadsheets and are just searching for a relatively simple answer [i know i know... it's not gonna happen!!].

can't someone get in touch with QS and ask for clarification on the use of these devices? it just seems crazy to give the game these things and hope the players figure things out for themselves. i know this is part of the fun with moo3 but now i'm getting frustrated as are so many others here as wqell as the hordes of lurkers out there [you know who you are!!] .

this is just plain crazy!
QS!! PLEASE TELL US HOW ECCM/ECM AND SENSORS WORK! PUT AN END TO THE SPECULATION!
<whimper>

aw... buggeration!!

Ron_Lugge

07-09-2003, 03:42 AM

It seems that sensors / ECCM do in fact help detect the enemy earlier (at a farther distance); however, if you consider it, the AI only stacks ECCM on recon. Note that the sensors it places on SR/LR tfs are more effective (and, IIRC, smaller) than ECCMs... So my guess is thats a "Just-in-case" measure, incase they are put in a TF without recon. Either that, or sensors / ECM are hard-coded to use different modifiers, even though offtgtrg is the one listed.

I do think the last one is possible - remember that the program won't accept some values in some places, and it would *not* be unlikely for them to have programmed it "This system can use this mod; this system can use that; they are both with the same names but they do different things."

In short?

I'd guess that ECM / cloak is based on per ship (remember, in early game stealth TFs use ECMs instead of cloaks, so ECM does have an effect) and so's ECCM (which it only stacks on recon). I'd say that it places sensors on LR / SR ships (*not* recon, which is why I think it may be seperate mods with the same name) because of the tech description, which says it makes the enemy seem closer (IIRC for reasons of targeting / accuracy)

synchro_w

07-09-2003, 06:00 AM

mmm.....

zerry interestink. the ECM as 'early days' cloak has got to be the case, hasn't it? it's not brilliant but if used right it can give some form of cloaking to a TF against a force without counter measures. that makes a lot of sense. that would be a logical approach..
kinda like they thought, " we can't give everyone cloaking from the outset but they can have ECM - as a poor man's cloak - so to speak".
thus, the potential to make your ship electronically 'invisible'. and as with cloak this tech has to be ship by ship usage by its very nature [well, logically, anyways!].
i think you may be right about the way sensors/ECM may use diff modifiers, also. the hard coded way. you know what these game designer s are like... they gotta have some secrets... especially with a gem like moo3.

i just did a coupla tests with TF with ECM and ECCM. i got the idea from visage when he said he tried sending 3 different types of TF against a planet so i figured i'd give it a go.
but they don't make sense. i used 4 xECMs in 4 Crsrs in a flotilla, with 2 LtCrsrs having 3 ECCMs each. this was all i had so i figured i'd try it this way just to see how the use of both counter-measures work together after i'd read that the use of ECM and ECCm in the same TF would cancel each other out.

as it was, the SR tf was blinking! the way AI ships do when they obviously are using ECM! this is confusing.
i haven't gone thru all the ships as yet but there may be a few older designs of mine in there with single ECM in them.

but if you consider that the AI planetary defence might not have ECM/ECCM nor even sensors<?> w/o the use of infrastructures like thetaplex scanning array <?> then might not the ECM be more effective?
still doesn't explain why the whole TF was blinking tho. maybe that blinking means something else?
i'll have to set up more tests with more stringent checks and settings. i'm too sloppy maybe?

either way, ron, i may start testing modified auto built designs just to see if the game knows how to handle it best. i mean, it's macro management, right? so that means a lot of the fiddly details are being worked out for us in the background <well... hopefully!!!>

now tho? i gotta dig up my garden... or rather... the landlord's garden. i should bloody well charge him!!

thanks
das

Buggerthis

07-09-2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Blaze
Take a look at my space battle mechanics guide, it might help. Also if you want more info about non-controlled battles check out visages guide, there's a link at the bottom of my guide. My link is in my sig.

Sorry, I was unclear. The 'Charge of the Light Brigade' effect comes when my one or two full speed beam TFs charge into the enemy on 'watch' (which I started using after I noticed I started losing ships in 'cede control'). If I'm controlling them, they don't charge, but get micromanaged to stay in freaking formation around the rest of the fleet.

The problem comes in the AI controlled combats, where unless the beam TFs are on the opposite side of the planet from the attackers, they charge out to die gloriously (usually getting some serious licks in before they die) in the face of relatively greater numbers.

The combat model is (IMO) seriously FUBAR, but can be worked around. For example, despite the problems and annoyances, I'm much happier with all LR mission ships instead of using all the various types. Stupid that I have to call carriers and missile boats beam ships to get them to perform reasonably. Stupid that you cannot give fleet formation commands. Stupid that I have to go in and rename all but actually beam TFs so I know which are carrier/missile TFs. Gah, I can go on and on about this one.

King's Specter

07-09-2003, 12:11 PM

Against the AI I've found that making all my ships very slow (100 or less) works well. The TA's are forced to cover each other and the Beam LR (everything is "LR") will act as point defense and hammer any AI SR groups approaching.

One thing that I'm toying with is an armada of faster (1500) cheap ships loaded to the gills with PD. The pd force will move ahead of my ships toward the enemy and draw fire away from my expensive ships. Loading them with pd allows them to deal with most missile and fighter swarms and if they can't, hey they are more where they came from!

The trick is not letting them close so fast that they reach the enemy TFs before my fighters and missiles can do their work.

synchro_w

07-09-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by King's Specter
Against the AI I've found that making all my ships very slow (100 or less) works well. The TA's are forced to cover each other and the Beam LR (everything is "LR") will act as point defense and hammer any AI SR groups approaching.

One thing that I'm toying with is an armada of faster (1500) cheap ships loaded to the gills with PD. The pd force will move ahead of my ships toward the enemy and draw fire away from my expensive ships. Loading them with pd allows them to deal with most missile and fighter swarms and if they can't, hey they are more where they came from!

The trick is not letting them close so fast that they reach the enemy TFs before my fighters and missiles can do their work.

this is how i do things at the mo. i have v.slow IF and Carr TFs with huge numbers of PD ships included in them. if i have enough i/ceptors ripping the arse outta the enemy i can let them do their business with a few salvos of missiles to make things interesting. this is also were i want ECM/cloaks to work. launching i/ceptors and missiles like crazy whilst hidden is a beautiful thing. but i find i need a SR TF carrying bags of eccms. speed at 1600 so they can quickly contribute firepower to the ceptors and missiles [tho, 1600 seems a bit poo... maybe 2000 would be better?].
the trouble is, the SR do take some considerable damage, and usually its the ECCM ships going down first. <they have no weapons>

<edit>i just noticed how poorly the beam weapons are at anything over short range. i just researched hellfire cannons and replaced my rail guns with them. bad move. the specialist LR spinal BCrsrs now with hellfire cannons are just not doing the damage at LR. the rail guns did an ecellent job at LR [i also use spinal LR ships kinda like IF ships with lotsa PD support and a SR TF to hold off enemy TF closing in on them].
of course, beam weapons are great for the SR TF. get in close with turreted Heavy weapons and watch the fun while your spinal LR ships hammer them from safety. and they're bloody cheaper than missile and don't end up useless after 5 salvoes.:up: :D :D

Azariel

07-09-2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
It seems that sensors / ECCM do in fact help detect the enemy earlier (at a farther distance); however, if you consider it, the AI only stacks ECCM on recon. Note that the sensors it places on SR/LR tfs are more effective (and, IIRC, smaller) than ECCMs... So my guess is thats a "Just-in-case" measure, incase they are put in a TF without recon. Either that, or sensors / ECM are hard-coded to use different modifiers, even though offtgtrg is the one listed.

I do think the last one is possible - remember that the program won't accept some values in some places, and it would *not* be unlikely for them to have programmed it "This system can use this mod; this system can use that; they are both with the same names but they do different things."

In short?

I'd guess that ECM / cloak is based on per ship (remember, in early game stealth TFs use ECMs instead of cloaks, so ECM does have an effect) and so's ECCM (which it only stacks on recon). I'd say that it places sensors on LR / SR ships (*not* recon, which is why I think it may be seperate mods with the same name) because of the tech description, which says it makes the enemy seem closer (IIRC for reasons of targeting / accuracy)

Well i don't think it'd be that complicated if it was hardcoded to use different "modifiers" for ECCM and Sensors.
What if there was just a check *if* Sensors are on a ship, and *how many* ECCM is there? I really tend to think that Sensors don't stack, since the AI build seems to do a good job overall. Maybe not as tweaked as a human, but it understands some basics better than we do, 'cause it read the manual :D

Da_Blade

07-09-2003, 06:22 PM

A. Why would they use the same variable for two different things?

B. In the dev chat, QSI pretty much explained how sensors/ECCM work, i'll leave it up to Renaux to explain it all...

Beamup

07-09-2003, 06:37 PM

Basically it's exactly what everybody but zanzibar has been saying. Sensors and ECCM reduce the effective range, ECM and cloaking increase it. That's it, they all stack, simple as can be.

Though it wasn't clear whether it affects weapon ranges/accuracy too or just sighting. The way it was phrased suggested that it would even affect weapon range, which seems very strange...

Da_Blade

07-09-2003, 06:45 PM

I took it the other way round: weapon range affects scouting.

Beamup

07-09-2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Da_Blade
I took it the other way round: weapon range affects scouting.

I interpreted that as meaning that typical ranges for visual spotting were on the order of weapon ranges. But you might well be right - though that would be even stranger than sensors extending your weapons range...

Blaze

07-09-2003, 09:04 PM

<Renaux> 1) explaing visual detection, how it was supoed to work, how it works, and how it might work in the future, including cloaking, ecm, eccm, and sensors
originally posted by QSI
<Floyd-QSI> Basically, in combat there are a series of ranges: Max Acuracy Range, Max Damage Range, minimums for both. Visual range is a random value that hovers near the edge of Max Accuracy....
ECCM, ECM, Cloaking Devices and Sensors all modify what the acting task forces THINKS the actual range is.....
So, if actual range is 20,000, and you have good sensors it acts as if the range were much closer.....
Each device is a multiplier to the range value it targets...and they all stack....
That is pretty much it.
What this tell me is that first that the max accuracy of DF weapons is your base detection range. If you have sensors or ECCM, you can target further away. If the enemy has cloaking devices or ECM, your targeting range is reduced. Now I'm not sure if this actually defines what visual detcetion is or not. I know that from my own testing that sensor range and visual detection sre not the same thing. And even though that visual info is shared in order to produce a viewable target, sensor info is not shared between TF's (atleast not all of the time).
Chat logs
<snip>
[13:00] <Floyd-QSI> Which visibility bug? :)
[13:01] <Floyd-QSI> Dennis handling those on a case by case basis
[13:02] <Floyd-QSI> Close Range loss of visibility isn't a behavior I've seen. I'll take a look at reproducing it.
<snip>
[13:05] <Floyd-QSI> If by losing tracking you mean having missiles lose their target and patrol indefinitely...there is a visual bug that causes that sometimes.
[13:06] <Floyd-QSI> The missiles actually got blown up by PD or hit their target...but they are still displayed for some odd reason
[13:06] <Floyd-QSI> Dennis has fixed 2 or 3 causes of it...but it still happens sometimes
[13:07] *** apex (~apex@eb1004-26.eng.uwo.ca) has joined channel #moo3
[13:07] <Wolfensteijn> according to renaux they don't hit
[13:08] <Floyd-QSI> My understanding is that, in code they DO...they just never get displayed having hit
[13:08] <Floyd-QSI> The visual never catches up to the internal numbers in other words
It looks as though there are many bugs in how missiles target an enemy (ie loose tracking), or that they aren't aware of how the bug actually behaves. I know for sure that missiles will not cause damage, and are so plentiful that PD couldn't kill them (not to mention that they aren't even w/in range of the enemies PD when they loose tracking). Unless they have fixed this in the final installment of the patch.

viciouscycle

07-09-2003, 09:45 PM

So are all of the range computations on a ship by ship basis or a task force basis? Say you have three recon ships in a LR armada and these three recon ships have tons of sensors and ECCM... now say that your twelve LR core ships loaded with spinal mount beams have no sensors or ECCM at all... how does it all work? As long as you have at least one recon that can "see" the enemy will all of your LR ships in that task force be able to benefit from the recon ship(s)? Or do you need to have sensors and ECCM on each core ship?

synchro_w

07-09-2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Blaze
<Renaux> 1) explaing visual detection, how it was supoed to work, how it works, and how it might work in the future, including cloaking, ecm, eccm, and sensors

<huge sthnip!>

So, if actual range is 20,000, and you have good sensors it acts as if the range were much closer.....
Each device is a multiplier to the range value it targets...and they all stack....
That is pretty much it.

just to clarify: when you say 'they all stack', does that mean, say, ECM 1 + ECM 1 + ECM 1 = better ECM?
or,
XRTS + XRTS + ECCM 1 + ECCM 1 = better sighting of target TF?
[or, alternatively, XRTS + ECM 1 + ECM 1 = better reduction of enemy vision?ie, reduced range? or should there be only one of each... i'm guessing there should be]

<again, i apologise for the use of kindergaten equations>

i can almost feel the light at the end of the tunnel... i say 'feel' cos my ECCM isn't working right...

thanks
synchro
<keeping it simple cos he don't know any other way!>

Ron_Lugge

07-09-2003, 11:39 PM

Okay, my understanding is this:

ECCM / Sensors make the enemy appear closer to you, for purpose of detection and possibly weapons range.

ECM / Cloak make you appear farther away *for the enemy* for detection and possibly weapons range.

Max detection range seems to be based off of DF weapons

Blaze

07-10-2003, 12:18 AM

here's what I got out of it.
1) sensors stack. So if you put 12 sensors on a ship, you get to target at a very far range.
2) same w/ ECCM
3) ECM/Cloaking lets ships get closer before they can fire (even though ships have been visible). Essentially it has nothing to do w/ visual detection, but instead effects the effectiveness of the enemies weapons range.
4) you can stack ECM/cloaking, and get more of an affect
5) visual detection is based on the range of you DF wepons, (ie the furthest DF wepon you have is on any single ship in the TF; is used for your visual detection radius.
6)ECM, ECCM, sensors, cloaking is cumulative on every ship in a TF, ie you can put all of your ECM/Cloaking or ECCM/Sensors all on one ship, and in battle it will apply to the entire TF (though I have a hunch that this won't have the same effect on the Gal Map, ie your TF's will be visible on the Gal Map).

Of course this is just my interpretation of what QSI said, and is not based on any experimental data. Visage would be the best bet to confirm or disprove the mechanics outlined here.

visage

07-10-2003, 04:29 AM

The preceding QSI quotes read to me to say the following:

a) Visual Detection range is supposed to be derived from approximate max DF weapons range.

b) Electronics are supposed to stack.

c) Electronics theoretically target one or more range stats.

What isn't clear from the text is:

d) If different electronics target different range stats despite having the same listed stat mod in Tech Tables (...and based only on TechTables, it is at least conceivable that Sensors are indeed targetting separate stats from ECM/ECCM).

e) If they're all supposed to target all range stats in combat.

f) *How* they stack. Do they stack by ship, by TF, by fleet? Does this vary by type of electronics.

(g: Does any of this behave in practice the way it's supposed to in theory?)

Regardless of that, I'm under the impression that I've thoroughly tested the impact that electronics have on accuracy and damage dropoff or max range and found there to be no effect; that I tested all combinations of ECCM, ECM, Sensors, and Cloaks against each other and found it to make no difference. Now, it's been a while and I could be confused about what I did or did not test, but it strikes me as unlikely. I'll see if I can dig up my old notes. If I can't, I'll probably at some point get around to running a test to see if I can't prove or disprove the theory that ECM/ECCM have any impact on accuracy, damage dropoff, or max range.

Visual detection is essentially the thing that started me on testing MoO3's space combat, and after many hours I gave up having apparently nothing but noise for data. I doubt I'll dig up the enthusiasm for another go at it. :)

Ron_Lugge

07-10-2003, 05:01 AM

OK, we know they stack.

We know that ECM increases effective range, and ECCM reduces it.

We know that if you detect 1 ship in a TF, you detect them all.

IIRC, its been proven that ECM effects only 1 ship in a TF - the one its on.

From that, I say we can extrapolite that ECCM works similarily, though I believe base detection range is set by TF, *not* by ship.

So, in short, I think I've been right all along. You have the best detector in a TF against the worst stealth in a TF...

viciouscycle

07-10-2003, 07:07 PM

The stacking issue has me thinking again. I know, I know... everybody run for cover. The tech descriptions indicate that ECM/ECCM/and sensors at level I have a very short range of effectiveness and as you go up to level II, level III, etc. the range of effectiveness increases. From the chat, it sounds like this is perhaps not true.

But if it is... if there are different ranges... what happens when you stack say, three ECCM I units versus a stack of one ECCM level I unit, one ECCM level II unit, and one ECCM level III unit? Does it matter? If not, then couldn't you just look at the modifiers and the space each unit takes up to determine the most effective stacking method? Say, three ECCM level II units have a better cumulative modifier and take up less space than two ECCM level III units.

Ugh... I wish I had been in the chat and maybe I could have asked these questions directly. Or even better, someone from QS would pop in on this thread and drop an information bomb on us to clear the air.

visage

07-10-2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by viciouscycle
Ugh... I wish I had been in the chat and maybe I could have asked these questions directly. Or even better, someone from QS would pop in on this thread and drop an information bomb on us to clear the air.

I've been told that there are "issues" with detection and that at least some parts of QS are very leery of explaining how things work / are supposed to work until those get cleaned up.

Now, given that fixing it doesn't seem to be in 1.2.5, I don't expect it'll ever be fixed...

Phezzan

07-12-2003, 05:31 AM

I've decided it's QSI that needs the coffee.

From what I've seen here - ...
the actual distance is multiplied by all values, then compared to your DF weapon range (or a randomized derivative)

This means that PD ships with Sensors cant see as well as LR ships with no sensors?...

This means unarmed scouts are blind?

So - the Autobuild Recon ships are Blind?

Ugh - It boggles the mind - How could this be, It's so obviously wrong...

QSI: Recode visual detection, It can't be that hard....

Here I'll write it:

// Uses 20% sensor variance.
#define sensorVariance 0.2f
function int test_detection(Ship detector, Ship detectee){
float baseDetectionDistance = detectee.hullSize.getBaseDetectionDistance();
float sensorModifier = 1.0f / (detector.OffTgtRg);
float CloakModifier = 1.0f / (detectee.DefTgtRg);
float randomModifier = 1.0f + (-0.1f + sensorVariance * ((float)rand() / (float)RAND_MAX));
float modifiedDetectionDistance = baseDetectionDistance * sensorModifier * CloakModifier * randomModifier;

if( distance(detector, detectee) < modifiedDetectionDistance){
return true;
}
return false;
}

Now it's just cut, paste, and language/variable translation.

There - isn't that easy. now just loop through every ship in the detector TF and call that function against every ship in the detectee TF. If that function returns true - The detectee is detected and you can shortcut the rest of the detection loop for this detection cycle.

If you want to give a bonus to spotting TFs that were visible last cycle - add 0.1f to the randomModifier - This increases detection range by 10% and makes detection more likely.

The detection cycle should be run more often on missles - or use a non polling method for scheduling missle detection. Instead have the missles signal the detector when they enter 120% detection range, and if the missles aren't spotted, run cycles periodically until either the missiles are spotted _OR_ the missiles enter 80% detection range, at 80% modifiedDetectionDistance the missiles should immediately be spotted.

Problem solved.

Now I won't have invisible fighters launched from an invisible taskforce blast me for a full minute with impunity while invisible missles continue to appear right next to me despite my 2 LR Armadas each with 2 sensor frigates and 4-6 PD frigates, I wish I had a screenshot of my fleet imitating a blind sitting duck.

Phez

PS: if hulls don't have a base detection range (or a modifier to it) they SHOULD.
It's easier to spot the Death Star than a shuttle.
I also assume that all the sensor mods change the same (single) variable and that variable belongs to the ship, instead of the item (sensor V).

Da_Blade

07-12-2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Phezzan
PS: if hulls don't have a base detection range (or a modifier to it) they SHOULD.
It's easier to spot the Death Star than a shuttle.
I also assume that all the sensor mods change the same (single) variable and that variable belongs to the ship, instead of the item (sensor V).

Hull size and TF size do affect the visibility, so don't worry about that. Also, AFAIK the sensor range seems dependant on the longest range weapon in the TF, not on the SHIP.

Phaedra

07-12-2003, 11:36 AM

It seems that some people are still not clear on this. It works thusly:

ALL ships in the task force get the benefit of ECCM. it only has to be stacked (or not) on say, a recon ship to allow all your ships to detect the enemy at range.

ECM only affects the detectability of the ship it is on. If you want your whole taskforce to be difficult to target, it must be on all your ships. It is pointless to have ECM on some ships in your TF but not others.

Phezzan

07-12-2003, 01:13 PM

Hull size and TF size do affect the visibility, so don't worry about that. Also, AFAIK the sensor range seems dependant on the longest range weapon in the TF, not on the SHIP.
I'm glad you're sure, My code was a suggestion, not an explanation. It's good to know that only recon TFs are blind, and my Armada's can see based on their DF LR weapons and their recon ships' sensors...?

ALL ships in the task force get the benefit of ECCM. it only has to be stacked (or not) on say, a recon ship to allow all your ships to detect the enemy at range. There are two ways to interpret what you are saying.

The ship with ECCM detects the enemy and shares the info with its TF.
All the ships in the TF get the benefit of the largest stack of ECCM of any ship in the TF when attempting to detect the enemy ships.

I think #1 makes sense, as opposed to 2.

Phez

Morris13

07-12-2003, 02:07 PM

Let me see if I can find the bottom line of all this stuff on electronics.

For defensive electronics (Cloaking and ECM), you want every ship in the tf to have the same loadout. If you have mixed hulls in the TF, the smaller ones can get by with less ECM than the big ones and still have the whole TF more or less equal.

For offensive electronics (Sensors and ECCM), you want to have specialist ships packed to the gills with both sets of equipment.

Question : It seems to be the consensus that you CAN stack Sensor units for greater effectiveness. Is this true for Cloaks too?

Phezzan

07-12-2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Morris13
For offensive electronics (Sensors and ECCM), you want to have specialist ships packed to the gills with both sets of equipment.
Also you need a LR DF weapon in the TF to improve sensors.

Question : It seems to be the consensus that you CAN stack Sensor units for greater effectiveness. Is this true for Cloaks too?
Pretty sure cloaks aren't stackable. - The UI won't let you.
You can put one of each on, and I *think* that stacks, but logic has been relatively ineffective at figuring out Moo3.

I suggest the Magic 8 ball. It replies faster than the Devs. [snip rant]

Phez

neatstuff

07-14-2003, 02:35 AM

All the discussion about multipliers for the range misses a critical point. So what if a ship 20000 units away appears to be 200 units away if you don't know what baseline range is used to determine if it is close enough? What if it has to appear to be 1 unit away?

Blaze

07-14-2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by neatstuff
All the discussion about multipliers for the range misses a critical point. So what if a ship 20000 units away appears to be 200 units away if you don't know what baseline range is used to determine if it is close enough? What if it has to appear to be 1 unit away?
I don't think this is the correct way of interpreting how this is said to work. How I interpret quotes from QSI, is that when sensors make things appear closer, they are saying that your wepon accuracy and/or range will increase, so that the resulting numbers from combat (ships destroyed, damage done, etc.) act as though the ships were closer. Admittedly the original quotes from QSI immediately made me think "gee this could easly be mis-interpreted"

ArticFire

07-21-2003, 09:33 AM

Well that would be all fine and dandy except for one point.

If detection range is bassed off of longest DF fire weapon present how come a IF ship with nothing but missles can see anything at all ?

Take this test , early game build a IF shp with nothing but missles on it. Then build another ship packed with lasers.

Now have the two fight , bet ya the IF ship fires at the laser ship. Explain how this would possible comming from a ship with no DF range base to work off of ? By the logic I see here it's max detection range should be 0 since there is no DF weapon to work off.

Beamup

07-21-2003, 11:34 AM

Good point. However, the one thing that can confidently be said about detection is that nobody understands it (personally I question whether anyone at QSI even does). We know sensors/ecm/eccm/cloaking have no readily measurable impact on detection range, which suggests DF weapon range may not either, but I am aware of no tests regarding the impact of DF range specifically (the tests I know of, performed by visage and blaze, looked at electronics rather than DF range).

For the moment my "recon" ships are basically PD ships with one of my longest-ranged beam on them. I don't spend space on electronics that don't have a discernible effect anymore. The beam may not have any effect on detection either, but at least it can still shoot at the enemy.

Blaze

07-21-2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by ArticFire
Well that would be all fine and dandy except for one point.

If detection range is bassed off of longest DF fire weapon present how come a IF ship with nothing but missles can see anything at all ?

Take this test , early game build a IF shp with nothing but missles on it. Then build another ship packed with lasers.

Now have the two fight , bet ya the IF ship fires at the laser ship. Explain how this would possible comming from a ship with no DF range base to work off of ? By the logic I see here it's max detection range should be 0 since there is no DF weapon to work off.
first, did some testing after my last post, and techs don't effect weapon range or accuracy. Secondly, based on controlled battles, I believe that visual detection and sensor detection are similar, but have some differences. sensor detection is not always shared between TF's. I had build pure IF/CV ships, and w/ no sensors of DF weapons, they would not autofire. If i put DF weapons, on, they would fire at the DF range, if i put sensors on, they would fire at about 1/2 square away. So i classifiy sensor detection as what is used for autofire on IF/CV ships. But you can give a fire order on any visable target. Now the other kinds of TF's will autofire on anything at any range (w/in any of it's weapon ranges) and visual detection is shared. now ships w/ no DF weapons, and no sensors appear to have a base detection of 3-4 squares, but detection is random.

Beamup

07-21-2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Blaze
Secondly, based on controlled battles, I believe that visual detection and sensor detection are similar, but have some differences.

How does this theory work with your data:

Each TF on one side tries independently to detect each target (TF or missile salvo or fighter group) on the other side. If any TF is successful, the detected target appears on the screen. A given TF can (and will) fire on a target if either it has detected the target itself, or if it is issued a specific attack order.

This seems to me to be consistent, as well as reasonable (issuing an "attack" order includes passing targeting information from the TF that can see the target, but until then it's limited to the TF that detected the target).

If I'm interpreting what you say correctly, under this theory, "visual detection" would be at least one friendly TF has detected the target. "Sensor detection" is then the particular TF trying to fire has detected the target.

It also occurs to me that this explains why some people have trouble with PD not firing and others do not. If there are no long-range DF weapons in a particular TF, it can't spot incoming missiles in time for the PD to respond - even though other TFs may have spotted them and therefore the missiles appear on screen, the targeted TF may not have and so cannot fire. Whereas a TF with long-range DF weapons in it will (usually) spot the missiles in time and open fire.

Implications of this would be that every TF should include one of your longest-ranged DF weapon (more for redundancy).

Blaze

07-21-2003, 04:11 PM

exactly. Though I would add that all ships except for CV/IF seem to share atleast some info. when I put missiles on IF/CV, they only autofire when the individual TF has sensor detection, however all the other ships wil autofire missiles. I know that this isn't straightforward, but Beamup has the basic understanding down, atleast he understands what I said. I also agree that 1 spinal DF would probably help w/ PD firing.

AlanC9

07-21-2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
If I'm interpreting what you say correctly, under this theory, "visual detection" would be at least one friendly TF has detected the target. "Sensor detection" is then the particular TF trying to fire has detected the target.

It also occurs to me that this explains why some people have trouble with PD not firing and others do not. If there are no long-range DF weapons in a particular TF, it can't spot incoming missiles in time for the PD to respond - even though other TFs may have spotted them and therefore the missiles appear on screen, the targeted TF may not have and so cannot fire. Whereas a TF with long-range DF weapons in it will (usually) spot the missiles in time and open fire.

Implications of this would be that every TF should include one of your longest-ranged DF weapon (more for redundancy). [/B]

There's only one thing that bugs me about this whole theory. It more or less posits an idiotic design decision: basing detect range on the range of the DF weapons in the task force. What would you have to be smoking to think that was a good idea?

So are we all agreed that the most important piece of equipment on a Recon ship is one ultra-spinal beam weapon?

Blaze

07-21-2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by AlanC9
There's only one thing that bugs me about this whole theory. It more or less posits an idiotic design decision: basing detect range on the range of the DF weapons in the task force. What would you have to be smoking to think that was a good idea?

So are we all agreed that the most important piece of equipment on a Recon ship is one ultra-spinal beam weapon?
that's what I do (click on sig for more info). Also it doesn't seem like such a bad idea for QSI to do what they have done. Except that they never got sensor or cloaking techs to work. When the tech description say "Allows you to see 30% further" that really confused me for a while. What was the base detection range, and why did it get further as the turns clicked away. But after a lot of testing, it makes more sense now. Sure would be nice if they fix this, but from the chat w/ the devs, I'm going to make the assumption that the people that originally coded the space battle engine are either no longer working at QSI, or weren't able to make it to the chat. There are still some bugs that QSI either don't know about, or don't acknowledge.

Beamup

07-21-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by AlanC9
There's only one thing that bugs me about this whole theory. It more or less posits an idiotic design decision: basing detect range on the range of the DF weapons in the task force. What would you have to be smoking to think that was a good idea?

So are we all agreed that the most important piece of equipment on a Recon ship is one ultra-spinal beam weapon?

I find the design questionable myself. I'd make the base detection range a constant and weapons have nothing to do with it. But, QSI explicitly said in the chat that detection range hovers around the DF weapon range.

And I at least certainly agree with that conclusion (well, not necessarily ultra spinal, but the longest-range weapon you can build), like I said above. It can even be amplified by saying that electronics are a waste of space and should not be included (regardless of how you interpret the data, this conclusion is invariant).

Given this, it seems like we can come to the tentative conclusion that while we still don't really understand what drives detection we understand it enough for practical purposes. That is, we can't do a step-by-step analysis that yields calculable results that successfully predict what happens in-game (a la the SCMG), but we do understand enough to make informed design decisions (long-range DF weapons should be in every TF, electronics should not be in any ship). Thus, a "good job and thank you" is probably in order to blaze for collecting this data.

rhyssana

07-21-2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Blaze
I know that this isn't straightforward, but Beamup has the basic understanding down, atleast he understands what I said. I also agree that 1 spinal DF would probably help w/ PD firing.
straightforward enough - i got halfway through your post and started wondering if it explained the last of the PD bug... :eek: was so excited it took a while to go back and finish reading it and read beamup's..... :confused: and yep, there you both are, thinking the same thing! :up:

does this mean i finally don't have to be traumatized every time i enter space combat, worrying about whether i'll get hit with it this time or not???!?!! (crosses fingers and knocks on wood, since i haven't been hit hard by it yet :confused: :) )

-rhyssan

rhyssana

07-21-2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
Thus, a "good job and thank you" is probably in order to blaze for collecting this data.
definitely in order!! wtg, blaze!!! :up: THANK YOU!!!! :up:

(yes, that particular use of caps should be interpreted as shouting. i hope he heard me... :D )

-rhyssan

Patton1942

07-21-2003, 06:03 PM

This is quite possibly the most disapointing MoO3 revelation I've heard since... Ummm... well, ever really. I thought it was just me. Anyway, how sure of this are we? I haven't gotten into the spreadsheets like some others, but with so much about this game we don't understand... Well, I suppose I'm still just hoping that we're wrong about this.

Lets hope Chantz carries through with his declairation of Atari's commitment to this game.

Craig P.

07-21-2003, 06:53 PM

Blaze

07-21-2003, 07:23 PM

well thank you guy's. I'm still testing various things, right now, hoping to find any more indications of whats going on, incase there are any workarounds.

Da_Blade

07-22-2003, 07:29 AM

Well, that means so far sensors and visual detection works exactly as i always assumed, which is nice to know. As for the people thinking it is unreasonable to think a ship's sensors is equal to the wepon range; i don't think it's unreasonable at all. Nobody designs a weapon with a ship without a targetting computer. Now, that targetting computer needs a sensor to target the weapon. Also, you would need a lock on a ship in order to fire successfully, this means you will need a seperate sensor and targetting computer for each weapon. This way, you can easily assume that a sensor and targetting computer is INCLUDED in the space and cost for each weapon. Also, the sensor only needs to be as strong as the beam weapon can carry, the least.

If you want a greater detection range, put extra sesnsors on. So IMO, this philosphophy isn't half as bad as it sounds at first, as basically the bare nessecity of each weapon is a sensor equal to it's maximum fire range, assuring that the maximum fire range can actually be used. For extra need, the player needs to put extra stuff on itself.

Beamup

07-22-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Da_Blade
<snip>

This would be pretty silly for any navy, since sensor information has MANY more uses than just targeting weapons - so why limit yourself? Not to mention the fact that knowing something is out there and roughly where is a far cry from zeroing it in accurately enough to have some chance of hitting it with a weapon, so having detection range similar to weapon range is ridiculous.

Also, there are more in-game problems associated with it that haven't been mentioned yet.
- Apparently nobody told the autobuild about this. The autobuilt recon ships are WORTHLESS for recon, and even if sensors worked noticeably would be pretty ineffectual.
- The entire concept of reconnaissance and maneuver goes right out the window with this approach. Scouting out the enemy so you can bring him into range to attack is no longer meaningful.

Philosophy

07-22-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by viciouscycle
The stacking issue has me thinking again. I know, I know... everybody run for cover. The tech descriptions indicate that ECM/ECCM/and sensors at level I have a very short range of effectiveness and as you go up to level II, level III, etc. the range of effectiveness increases. From the chat, it sounds like this is perhaps not true.

But if it is... if there are different ranges... what happens when you stack say, three ECCM I units versus a stack of one ECCM level I unit, one ECCM level II unit, and one ECCM level III unit? Does it matter? If not, then couldn't you just look at the modifiers and the space each unit takes up to determine the most effective stacking method? Say, three ECCM level II units have a better cumulative modifier and take up less space than two ECCM level III units.

Ugh... I wish I had been in the chat and maybe I could have asked these questions directly. Or even better, someone from QS would pop in on this thread and drop an information bomb on us to clear the air. This strange situation was the case in the original release version, but QS fixed it in the first data patch. There is a thread from way back with all my calculations in it if you want to search for it. Basically we discovered:

1. Always use sensors instead of equivalent level ECCM - they are more powerful for the same space, and ECCM doesn't seem to do anything special extra.
2. Always stack the highest level sensors you can.

The fact that QSI fixed this indicates that these things are at least supposed to stack. Whether they work as QSI intended them to though is another matter.

Philosophy

07-22-2003, 12:19 PM

Are you sure the combination DF and stacked sensors/ECCM applies over an entire task force? Or do they have to be on the same ship. I know I've made super recon ships with like 20-something of the most powerful sensors on them, but with no weapons or just a few PD guns. If the stacking mulitplies detection like QSI says it should, then these things should easily be able to detect anything on the entire combat map, especially since the computer AI never uses cloaking or ECM. But they don't - I still get enemy task forces disappearing from visibility a half dozen squares away, and PD weapons that refuse to fire.

Perhaps I'll put a single ultra-spinal mount longest range beam weapon available on one of those super recon ships and see what happens.

Beamup

07-22-2003, 12:29 PM

Experimentally, sensors have no perceptible effect in a reasonable number of trials. Same for ECM. Apparently some tests have been done demonstrating that DF range really does impact detection range - the data from these tests aren't on the boards, though. So, you'll get better results adding the weapon, but no better than if you didn't have the sensors.

AlanC9

07-22-2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Da_Blade
So IMO, this philosphophy isn't half as bad as it sounds at first, as basically the bare nessecity of each weapon is a sensor equal to it's maximum fire range, assuring that the maximum fire range can actually be used. For extra need, the player needs to put extra stuff on itself. [/B]

The problem isn't that sensors are necessary for weapons; nobody disputes that. The problem is that weapons are necessary for sensors.

If I want to give a task force maximum sensor range I have to put long range beam weapons on it, even if such weapons have no value to that TF.

Craig P.'s comment made me think; could this be modded into something rational? Say, have the sensor techs be beam weapons with long range, no damage, and no visual effects? Or new gadgets to handle the same function?

Philosophy, are you saying that this was fixed in the data patch, but rebroken in 1.2?

Beamup

07-22-2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by AlanC9
Craig P.'s comment made me think; could this be modded into something rational? Say, have the sensor techs be beam weapons with long range, no damage, and no visual effects?

Very interesting idea... seems like this should work for the most part. The main problem I can see would be getting the autobuild to use it.

Not that recon autobuild would get any worse. It can't, since its recon ships are already nothing more than flying damage magnets... they'd be just as effective if they were empty!

Philosophy

07-22-2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by AlanC9
Philosophy, are you saying that this was fixed in the data patch, but rebroken in 1.2? No, I was just referring to the range multipliers on the different tech levels of sensors/ECCM/ECM, relative to the amount of hull space they take up, as this pertains to stacking. Before the first data patch, stacking more lower tech versions of these was actually better than stacking fewer higher level ones in the same amount of hull space. But in all subsequent patches they fixed it so the higher tech versions are always better when stacking.

...assuming stacking works and these techs work, which nobody seems to know for sure, including whoever is left at QSI.

visage

07-22-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
Very interesting idea... seems like this should work for the most part. The main problem I can see would be getting the autobuild to use it.

Not that recon autobuild would get any worse. It can't, since its recon ships are already nothing more than flying damage magnets... they'd be just as effective if they were empty!

If you make "sensors" into very long-ranged weapons doing no damage, then LR ships will use 'em.

I'm thinking of going the other way, making "recon" ships mirrors of LR ships (the AI will still build 'em smaller) and making SR TFs able to use PD in their picket ring.

Beamup

07-22-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by visage
If you make "sensors" into very long-ranged weapons doing no damage, then LR ships will use 'em.

I'm thinking of going the other way, making "recon" ships mirrors of LR ships (the AI will still build 'em smaller) and making SR TFs able to use PD in their picket ring.

But what about real LR ships? They shouldn't use these "sensors" as weapons, but they would try to, as I understand your testing (that they prioritize range above all else). How would you arrange for Recon to use them (preferably exactly 1, then PD) but not LR?

visage

07-22-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
But what about real LR ships? They shouldn't use these "sensors" as weapons, but they would try to, as I understand your testing (that they prioritize range above all else). How would you arrange for Recon to use them (preferably exactly 1, then PD) but not LR?

AFAIK, you can't, which is why my thought is to have recon ships just use the LR building rules and (this part was possibly unclear) have the autobuild largely ignore the sensor techs.

Beamup

07-22-2003, 05:06 PM

Then wouldn't a tech like this mess up the AI's fleets, since their LR ships couldn't do any damage? I can see that making Recon use the LR rules without adding the new tech would work all right, but I thought we were talking about how to make the new tech work well...

visage

07-22-2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
Then wouldn't a tech like this mess up the AI's fleets, since their LR ships couldn't do any damage? I can see that making Recon use the LR rules without adding the new tech would work all right, but I thought we were talking about how to make the new tech work well...

I'm talking about not using any "sensors" tech. Don't change it so that it's a weapon of some sort; instead, ignore its existance.

Beamup

07-22-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by visage
I'm talking about not using any "sensors" tech. Don't change it so that it's a weapon of some sort; instead, ignore its existance.

OK, I was confused. Now I understand.

Da_Blade

07-22-2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
This would be pretty silly for any navy, since sensor information has MANY more uses than just targeting weapons - so why limit yourself? Not to mention the fact that knowing something is out there and roughly where is a far cry from zeroing it in accurately enough to have some chance of hitting it with a weapon, so having detection range similar to weapon range is ridiculous.

No, if the player wants a ship to perform any additional role other then reconnainasance beyond it's current need for it's own weapons, you'll have to add additional sensors. Now, apart from the entire system being broken, it's not a completely illogical decision. Though i admit it wouldn't have been my own choice.

Blaze

07-22-2003, 09:24 PM

well what about IF/CV ships? The have no apparent reason to have long range beam weapons. Infact, most ship designs don't really need long range DF weapons (or atleast it doesn't mesh w/ it role). It was probably done this way because it was easyier to do, not that it was better, or made sense.

AlanC9

07-22-2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Da_Blade
No, if the player wants a ship to perform any additional role other then reconnainasance beyond it's current need for it's own weapons, you'll have to add additional sensors. Now, apart from the entire system being broken, it's not a completely illogical decision. Though i admit it wouldn't have been my own choice.

Huh?

Adding sensors to a ship without beam weapons wouldn't help; there's nothing to multiply. And why would the same sensors be more effective on a ship with beams than one without?

It's still in the "completely illogical"category as far as I can tell.

Flinx

07-22-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Craig P.
It makes sense as a shortcut to providing detection range that increases with increasing tech levels while not requiring that you add another system to the ship. It's a kludge, granted, but it at least explains why it would be done that way. Starting with this assumption, they should cache the range of the best DF weapon/mount combination and use this as the default sensor range on ALL (of your) ships. This cached value can be updated with each new DF weapon and mount tech. Having the range of a given sensor differ across different ships depending on what DF weapon is also on the ship is just stupid!

Da_Blade

07-23-2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by AlanC9
Adding sensors to a ship without beam weapons wouldn't help; there's nothing to multiply.

How i understand it, (and i am sure i don't) that sensors without weapons provide some range too...

And why would the same sensors be more effective on a ship with beams than one without?

Well, if it's a multiplier, it's quite logical to assume that the sensor array is nothing but a powerfull booster to existing sensors. Thus, it is dependant of the weapon sensors what range it will give.... I know it's not the ideal way of thinking of these things, but you have to do something....

Beamup

07-23-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Da_Blade
How i understand it, (and i am sure i don't) that sensors without weapons provide some range too...

Well, there appears to be a "base" range that ships with no/only short range beams use. It would probably multiply that if it did anything.

Blaze

07-23-2003, 01:24 PM

sensors do add a base sensor detection of about 1/2-1 square if no DF weapons are present, but they don't seem to stack, perhaps I could test this specifically at one point. I say this because IF ships w/ no DF or sensors will not autofire, but if you put sensors on, they will autofire at targets that are about 1/2-1 square away, and if the have DF weapoms, they will autofire at max DF range

AlanC9

07-23-2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Da_Blade

Well, if it's a multiplier, it's quite logical to assume that the sensor array is nothing but a powerfull booster to existing sensors. Thus, it is dependant of the weapon sensors what range it will give.... I know it's not the ideal way of thinking of these things, but you have to do something.... [/B]

Well, we don't have to do anything but call it irrational and move on. If the sensor techs aren't the sensors, but enhancements to the sensors, why can't we buy the sensors themselves?

But if you want a rationale, here's one: sensors and weapons are made by a big, monopolistic corporation (or by some noble house, or whatever suits your government). They operate like Microsoft, and believe in integrating everything to achieve monopoly profits. They've integrated the sensor package into the weapons package, and added enough shared systems so one won't function without the other. Oh, and their integration technology is so advanced that you can have the two components on separate ships in a task force. Or maybe the Death Ray and Scanner Manufacturers' Union, Local 242, got a clause written into their last contract that makes you buy equal numbers of sensors and weapons.

Question on the base detection range: if the sensors really do add a base detection range, where is that number coming from? Not the techtables. It'd be kind of weird to have the number hardcoded somewhere.

Or do all hulls have a base detect range of under 1/2 square (I'm assuming that's the minimum unit used for range calculations)? Useless on its own, but a sensor could reduce the target range to under the base and so make targeting possible.

Semantic point, Beamup: the sensor modifications don't increase the sensor's range. They reduce the target's effective range, hopefully to below the sensor's range (i.e., the best DF weapon's range). Same effect, though.

Edit: Blaze just noticed your post in the Bugs folder where you described a test that shows sensors doing nothing with DF weapons equipped. How can that result square with the test showing no IF point-blank autofiring until you put a sensor on? Is a 1/2 square add to the base detect the only real effect of sensors?

Beamup

07-23-2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by AlanC9
Semantic point, Beamup: the sensor modifications don't increase the sensor's range. They reduce the target's effective range, hopefully to below the sensor's range (i.e., the best DF weapon's range). Same effect, though.

:p

By reducing the effective range they increase the range at which the sensors can detect the target. It's not just the same effect, it's two ways of saying the same thing.

rhyssan

07-23-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by AlanC9
Question on the base detection range: if the sensors really do add a base detection range, where is that number coming from? Not the techtables. It'd be kind of weird to have the number hardcoded somewhere.[/B]
"weird" by what measure?? hardcoding is always easier for a "quick thing that's just temporary"... (the trouble is that no functioning hack is ever really 'just temporary'... :( )

-rhyssan

Flinx

07-23-2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by AlanC9
...They operate like Microsoft... QSI is like Microsoft and MOO3 is like Windows. Does that make MOO2 Apple?

AlanC9

07-24-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
:p

By reducing the effective range they increase the range at which the sensors can detect the target. It's not just the same effect, it's two ways of saying the same thing.

OK, say it like that; but don't blame me when someone starts telling us that the theory is all wrong because the sensor techs have a mutiplier less than zero. :rolleyes:

rhyssan, the part I thought was weird was to have a tech-specific constant that wasn't in the techtables. My understanding was that the devices don't exist outside of those entries.

And if they were doing it that way, then why not give the sensor systems a real detection range instead of 1/2 square?

Just trying to wrap my brain around the thought process. And failing.

rhyssan

07-24-2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by AlanC9

rhyssan, the part I thought was weird was to have a tech-specific constant that wasn't in the techtables. My understanding was that the devices don't exist outside of those entries.

And if they were doing it that way, then why not give the sensor systems a real detection range instead of 1/2 square?

Just trying to wrap my brain around the thought process. And failing.
the tech itself doesn't exist outside those tables, but there's something equivalent to a function that computes this in the code somewhere. it's unlikely that they use a single function and pass in any arbitrary tech in TechTables and its list of modifiers and get a list of "effects" out (whatever that would mean). it seems much more likely that there are a set of functions that deal with space combat, one or more of which deal with sensing (visual, targetting, i'm grouping all that together for the moment). and there could be any number of constants hardcoded within that function - without the source, we can't tell. there are certainly more ways to think of it, but i can easily see someone saying "what do i do if this TF doesn't have any sensors?" and being answered by "oh, they'll never do that - just stick some minimal thing in. say half a square - they're bound to have something in the TF that will increase it, so no one will ever see it." not that i think that's what happened, or even likely to be close! i'm just saying i find hardcoded constants (or even just magic numbers) happen quite frequently - it's more difficult (and thus, weird) for code to be free of them than to have them....

(speaking as one with much experience debugging other people's attempts at programming... :( )
-rhyssan

cousLee

07-25-2003, 02:38 AM

sensors and cloak affect the galaxy map
eccm and ecm affect the combat screen

around each TF are two translucent colored circles, indicating the cloak/sight radius of that TF.

can target enemy TF on the galaxy map for interception

(wakes up)

DA**IT!

Skymage

07-25-2003, 11:11 AM

Hmmmm.

Just a thought...

If a ship has a 'base' detection range (according to blaze it's 1/2 to 1 square) and the ship also has a 'weapon' detection range equal to it's best LR weapon, is it possible that the combat engine gets confused as to which range it should be looking at and thus causing ships to disappear as they get closer? Is it possible that ECCM and sensors ONLY help 'base' detection range and NOT 'weapon' detection range? I see that most of the tests were run with the BEST weapon on board, should we not try testing with NO weapons on board (looks around for someone with a setup that can test this way)? Testing this way would eliminate any variance due to 'weapon' detection range.

as I said, just an idle thought.

SkyMage

AlanC9

07-25-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Skymage
Hmmmm.

Just a thought...
If a ship has a 'base' detection range (according to blaze it's 1/2 to 1 square) and the ship also has a 'weapon' detection range equal to it's best LR weapon, is it possible that the combat engine gets confused as to which range it should be looking at and thus causing ships to disappear as they get closer? Is it possible that ECCM and sensors ONLY help 'base' detection range and NOT 'weapon' detection range? I see that most of the tests were run with the BEST weapon on board, should we not try testing with NO weapons on board (looks around for someone with a setup that can test this way)? Testing this way would eliminate any variance due to 'weapon' detection range.

Actually, Blaze's test showed that ships don't have a base detection range unless they have sensors or DF weapons - that was a test with no weapons. Unless, like I suggested before, the base range is below some threshold needed to be actually used in combat.

So it looks like the code checks to see if the TF has any target range modifiers, and if it does, adds a base detection range to the hull.

The weird part about this is that the range mod modifies the target's range, not the attacker's spot range. So when the code finds the sensor modification is present, some constant is added to the other side of the equation from where the sensor mod number is supposed to be used.

Unotelecrit

07-25-2003, 07:03 PM

I think I am starting to get a headache from all the techno lingo.
Any one came up with a simple answer to "What do I do to increase my ships detection range, and decrease the enemy’s" in three easy steps
.

Beamup

07-25-2003, 07:39 PM

Put one of your longest-ranged DF weapons (more for redundancy) in each TF. Don't use sensors, ECM, ECCM, or cloaks.

Unotelecrit

07-25-2003, 08:03 PM

So why is all thet disscussion about ECM ECCM cloaks censors?
Do they work at all?
Ecpecially The cloacs. I always used stealth shipes before.

AlanC9

07-25-2003, 08:05 PM

Hey, do we have any control over what goes into planetary defense bases? I'd like to fix them to give planets a huge detection range. This would stop undetected fleets from killing a defending fleet by launching missiles in the general direction of the planet.

Unotelecrit

07-25-2003, 08:12 PM

Use orbitals

Carlos113

07-25-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
Put one of your longest-ranged DF weapons (more for redundancy) in each TF. Don't use sensors, ECM, ECCM, or cloaks.
Thank you! :):up:

So it´s impossible to decrease the enemy detection range, right?

Beamup

07-25-2003, 08:33 PM

As far as is currently known, it is not possible, no.

Carlos113

07-25-2003, 08:36 PM

Whoa! You are always around, thank you.

Huszics

08-04-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Blaze
sensors do add a base sensor detection of about 1/2-1 square if no DF weapons are present, but they don't seem to stack, perhaps I could test this specifically at one point. I say this because IF ships w/ no DF or sensors will not autofire, but if you put sensors on, they will autofire at targets that are about 1/2-1 square away, and if the have DF weapoms, they will autofire at max DF range

That is very interesting if it turns out to really work this way, since that will finally allow for the possibility to pack a few I.F. ships full with PD missiles that REALLY ARE PD. Would have an enourmous inpact on Fleedwide PD efficiency if all your missiles didn't wander off and attack some enemy/planet but some was actually arund to also protect your own fleet from incoming enemy fire.

The same would perhaps go also for CV ships, possibly with a real difference between interceptor and SC fighters.
The description texts of interceptors talk about _intercepting_ missiles and enemy fighters, yet they too always wander off attacking the enemy faaaaar away (which according to the description should be the SC-fighters role). Perhaps all that is needed to get the interceptors to behave as they should is to place them in a DF-less TF with 1-2 sensors and they'll happily engage the enemy at close range protecting your IF/CV/LR ships.

If only I had my moo3 CD's with me (won't get to them until this weekend :()
Well, perhaps someone else will find the time to put this to the test before I will :).

PS If this is how things work, I suspect there would also be a very large difference in "targeting range" for I vs SC fighters which to some extent will explain the otherwise ludicrus difference in cost & hullspace values between the two types of fighters.