Wow, I remember reccomending something very similar. Except I used point values out of 100 points and didn't call them percentages

phyco with power1, on Oct 16 2005, 11:31 PM, said:

i reccommend a system of percentages, where you decide what percentage of your resources you want to use to develop a certain thing. an example would be: 10% to fighters, 10% to defence platforms, 40% to cruisers, 40% to destroyers.
View Post

Amen. So here is my recommendation, each team give three components to their strategy:

Strategic Plan:

Declare where you will defend and what you will attack. Standard logistics can be assumed to be delegated down lower. Just stuff like what planet you will protect, when you will attack, how you devote rescources (percent wise) to 1) infrastructure maintenance/improvement 2) Research and 3) Military interests. Infrastructure investment makes you less vulnerable to sabotage and more flexible in production (the more you invest early, the easy it is to switch the scale of ship production, for example). Infrastructure is disproportionally more expensive the more planets you own, thus nerfing team A's "advantage". The more you invest in research, the more likely it is that a suggested technology will be accepted by the judge. This is the Judges ruling only. The more far-fetched the science, the more rescources you will need and the higher the likelyhood of cost overruns. The judge should not be biased in these matters, and should carefully weigh the articles the team presents. Military interests are the next section.

Military Production Plan:

This is where you detail your ship design. The first gen ships should only use extrapolations of current technology, nothing to far fetched. No shields or cloaks, these have to be suggested in the research expense part of the Strategic plan. Include as much detail as you can here, this is the real focus of the game. Describe how the engines work, weapons, crew (if any), power. Everything you can think of. If the judge deems a technology advanced enough that you have to research it first, you are allowed to replace that part with a similar, less advanced part. Again, this is the focus of the game. Both teams design fleets, then the Judge estimates which team takes better advantage of the other teams weakness.

Tactical Plan:

Given the 'where' of the fight with the two strategic plans, and the 'with what?' of the fight with the Military Production plans, the tactical plan answers 'how?'. Here, each team details essentially what instructions they give to the commanders of the fleet. The reason we do not game this out with real ships is that we assume the actual leaders are working from the home planet, with no way to directly control the ships. You include tactics and tricks you want your commanders to use, formations, how far apart you want your ships to be, how you concentrate fire, and what your primary targets will be. Ships emerge from the photosphere of the star traveling at a speed S, in the direction from which they came (but not exactly lined up with the center of the sun. This is random and uncontrollable, ships will be scattered by approximately the sillouhette of the sun. Lets just say a ship jumps in and will randomly be placed just above the surface of the sun on any point of the sun that couldnt see the star it came from. I can draw a picture if this isnt clear).

Give me a few hours to calculate speed S. .1c is definitely too high, traveling at 1g acceleration, it would take many years. I still need to integrate the equation for acceleration due to the gravity of the sun, but lets just say, you need to accelerate at 1g towards the sun for an hour, and human cannot sustain that much more than a g or 2 for that long. So it would be about 10m/s^2 + whatever the acceleration due to gravity is from the sun for an hour. If you can do the research and decide that humans can take more than 1 gee for extended time periods, you can do a jump faster. I will do these calculations for people, so you dont need to worry about it. All ship movement physics is newtonian, we only have to worry about relativity/quantum for weapons and such. I doubt a ship will be able to get to appreciably high speeds.

Lets also assume that there must be human commanders in the battle. They can be aided arbitrarily by AI, and AI can be given the authority to take initiative, but there still needs to be a custodian of the battle.

Lets do this. Each team just build these three parts. We could even make a poll to see who wins, to take some of the stress off the judge. But this should be done at the judges discretion.

(Note: at the judges discretion, information from the Strategic plan will be kept secret until it makes sense for the other team to find out. Especially for research and movement well behind the front. (ie, team A will never have any idea what is going on in B's homeworld, as they have no way to get there). The Judge can make a ruling on espianoge(sp?), but a simple plan like universal ID cards, and the difficulty of communication, would make this impractical.)

Sounds good.

OK but can someone tell me how you use these "percent values" in a combat simulation?

Going back to a question I asked in my last post and no-one really answered:

If side X commits 10% of their battlecruisers and destroyers to a fight, and side Y commits 20% of their frigates and carriers, how will we know who will win?

A simple % value is not enough information to determine who will win, to actualy find out who would be the most likely to win you need:

1. Amount and types of ship involved in the conflict (IE, 10 destroyers, 40 frigates, 5 carriers etc.)
2. Approx damage done by such a fleet (IE, 1 carrier can take out 1.5 battlecruisers)
3. Evasive capabilitys (∆v, cloaking)
4. Special capabilitys (sheilding, special weapons, unique abilities)

This post has been edited by Skyfox : 17 October 2005 - 03:02 PM

Edwards: I fail to open the security cipher on your hologram, and it, thinking it's being tampered with, self-destructs. I get second-degree burns on my left hand and wrist.

Skyfox, on Oct 17 2005, 03:58 PM, said:

1. Amount and types of ship involved in the conflict (IE, 10 destroyers, 40 frigates, 5 carriers etc.)

Ok, each team estimates how much each of there ships costs themselves. If their prices are way off, then they just get less. Limiting to 10 or 20 ships is pointless and makes the game unscaleable.

Quote

2. Approx damage done by such a fleet (IE, 1 carrier can take out 1.5 battlecruisers)

NO. You are thinking about it like a computer game. Its not one ship kills 1.5 of another ship, its ship A accelerates a slug of mass 20 kg to speeds of 500 km/sec. At the range of nkm, given the innacuracy of .001 radians, the chance of hitting ship X using some amount of ∆v is ___. ∆v are listed in the design specification, cloaking should only be used after it is researched (ie the judge oks a tech article you read on it). If it hits, we try to estimate how much damage it would do to armor that is N thick. Note, we are not gaming out any one scenario, we are trying to figure out who would win on the average. Probably by figuring out how many ships die at long range, then if ships geared more towards close range fighting can get in there, how much damage they would do. Once we see two well developed plans for ship designs, we can discuss which would actually win.

Quote

3. Evasive capabilitys (∆v, cloaking)
4. Special capabilitys (sheilding, special weapons, unique abilities)
   View Post

Uh... we have those. Each team lists complete technical specifications of their ships. If you can figure out shielding, by all means, research it.

NebuchadnezzaR, on Oct 17 2005, 03:07 PM, said:

Ok, each team estimates how much each of there ships costs themselves. If their prices are way off, then they just get less. Limiting to 10 or 20 ships is pointless and makes the game unscaleable.
NO. You are thinking about it like a computer game. Its not one ship kills 1.5 of another ship, its ship A accelerates a slug of mass 20 kg to speeds of 500 km/sec. At the range of nkm, given the innacuracy of .001 radians, the chance of hitting ship X using some amount of ∆v is ___. ∆v are listed in the design specification, cloaking should only be used after it is researched (ie the judge oks a tech article you read on it). If it hits, we try to estimate how much damage it would do to armor that is N thick. Note, we are not gaming out any one scenario, we are trying to figure out who would win on the average. Probably by figuring out how many ships die at long range, then if ships geared more towards close range fighting can get in there, how much damage they would do. Once we see two well developed plans for ship designs, we can discuss which would actually win.
Uh... we have those. Each team lists complete technical specifications of their ships. If you can figure out shielding, by all means, research it.
View Post

Good thinking Neb. Agree 100% as usual... for some reason you happen to perfectly capture my ideas. I think you're a clone of me.

Anyone else wanna be a judge? It's only me right now...

NebuchadnezzaR, on Oct 17 2005, 03:07 PM, said:

Ok, each team estimates how much each of there ships costs themselves. If their prices are way off, then they just get less. Limiting to 10 or 20 ships is pointless and makes the game unscaleable.

Oh, so we are using resources? Or is someone going to define "reasonable" costs?

Quote

NO. You are thinking about it like a computer game. Its not one ship kills 1.5 of another ship, its ship A accelerates a slug of mass 20 kg to speeds of 500 km/sec. At the range of nkm, given the innacuracy of .001 radians, the chance of hitting ship X using some amount of ∆v is ___. ∆v are listed in the design specification, cloaking should only be used after it is researched (ie the judge oks a tech article you read on it). If it hits, we try to estimate how much damage it would do to armor that is N thick. Note, we are not gaming out any one scenario, we are trying to figure out who would win on the average. Probably by figuring out how many ships die at long range, then if ships geared more towards close range fighting can get in there, how much damage they would do. Once we see two well developed plans for ship designs, we can discuss which would actually win.

You used more variables, but the idea is the same. Given this basis in physics, this type of ship can do this much damage to this other type of ship over a certian period of time. IE creating a design and combat damage spec for a craft then using that data to create a generalization of how the senario would play out. Correct?

Skyfox, on Oct 17 2005, 07:07 PM, said:

...IE creating a design and combat damage spec for a craft then using that data to create a generalization of how the senario would play out. Correct?View Post

That does seem to be about right. He may be going for "average damage caused by fleet" vs "average defensive capablilty of fleet", but that's just a generalization of "battleship beats two cruisers".

Anyway, a few more questions about the rules:
Are permanent space stations included in the "percent this, percent that" arrangement?
How far from the star does the warp effect start?
Can you pummel a planet into submission with carefully aimed strikes, even if you don't actually engage the defense fleet?
Are you allowing antimatter-based engines*, or can we only use fusion-powered ships (which even now are only probable)?

*Antimatter drives requires the ability to produce and store large (gram-kilogram) quantities of antimatter, which is currently not possible. It is up to the judge(s) whether mass production of antimatter has been developed.

Edwards

Edwards, on Oct 17 2005, 11:47 PM, said:

Anyway, a few more questions about the rules:
Are permanent space stations included in the "percent this, percent that" arrangement?

Not civilian ones. If you were to, for example, tower rush (with space stations), then yes they would. Case-by-case answer.

Quote

How far from the star does the warp effect start?

Neb is doing the math on that now. (I'm lazy)

Quote

Can you pummel a planet into submission with carefully aimed strikes, even if you don't actually engage the defense fleet?

Blockade running may get you carefully aimed strikes on a planet, along with many casualties on your side. Anything I say about technology or tactics/stretegies is subject to change if someone clever finds a way to do it. So can you? Yes. Will they get mad at you for attacking civilians? Probably.

Quote

Are you allowing antimatter-based engines*, or can we only use fusion-powered ships (which even now are only probable)?

*Antimatter drives requires the ability to produce and store large (gram-kilogram) quantities of antimatter, which is currently not possible. It is up to the judge(s) whether mass production of antimatter has been developed.

Edwards

No one answer that. You'll find out if it's allowed if you try it or don't try it. Remember to use proof.
Sorry, but answering that is part of the game, not something that should be asked before it even starts. Don't ask about technology.

I think people are getting worked up too much on resources. Look, a planet or planetary empire has a huge amount of resources. If they mobilize for war, it's going to churn out quite a lot of materiel. So just figure that the resources available will be... a lot. What's more important is the percentages these resources get put into. Also figure that defense (being caught by relative surprise, and having a significant proportion of it's GPP in economic matters, like trade and civilian products), will be at a disadvantage compared to the attacker in terms of resources.

Do we know they exist?

Seriously. If our 5 systems think there're the only ones around, then I don't think we'd even bother with a large-scale navy, and we'd have to scramble to hold back the tide when the attack starts (and we aren't prepared).

But if we know they're there and we know they hate us and we know they want one specific planet of ours, then that's a whole different ballpark. Up to now I've been operating under the latter assumption, that I know someone's going to attack me, but I haven't heard why, so now I'm doubting that assumption.

Qaanol, on Oct 18 2005, 02:34 PM, said:

Do we know they exist?

Seriously. If our 5 systems think there're the only ones around, then I don't think we'd even bother with a large-scale navy, and we'd have to scramble to hold back the tide when the attack starts (and we aren't prepared).

But if we know they're there and we know they hate us and we know they want one specific planet of ours, then that's a whole different ballpark. Up to now I've been operating under the latter assumption, that I know someone's going to attack me, but I haven't heard why, so now I'm doubting that assumption.
View Post

You're both human, you know eachother exist, you go to war because of an arms race like the cold war, only it's the cold war... IN SPACE!!! Or like WW1 actually. Cause someone assassinated a minor ally's prime minister/president/emperor/king/regent and now you're all gonna kill eachother, but in two sides.

should we give moores law 200 years or so?

NebuchadnezzaR, on Oct 18 2005, 07:24 PM, said:

should we give moores law 200 years or so?
View Post

Let's see... I doubt 200 would be enough for FTL... maybe 400? Then again, according to moores law, we'd have computers 266.6 times faster than what we have now... and since we're at like 3.7ghz now, we'd be at 497ghz in 200 yrs as the standard for PCs... in 400 yrs we'd be at 131.5 thz (yes, tera) average, according to moore.

For comparison, the fastest supercomputer today is at 135.5 teraflops, (IBM Blue Gene/L), with aproximately 45.8 thz. That's 65,536 processors however. A single processor in 200 years would have about 0.5 thz... that makes a comparable supercomputer in 200 years 32.77 phz (peta). Mm.. fun.

Koshinn, on Oct 18 2005, 09:21 PM, said:

Let's see... I doubt 200 would be enough for FTL... maybe 400? Then again, according to moores law, we'd have computers 266.6 times faster than what we have now...View Post

Given the method of interstellar travel, the only requirements are some fancy theoretical work and an engine capable of producing one g of thrust for one hour. The former is basically random chance, and the latter could be done now (at great expense). Four hundred years would give a noticable amount of time for colonization, though.
As for the space stations, I was referring to military installations in orbit around planets, in defensive roles (and do you, perchance, play AoK?).

One more question:
How precisely lined up with the target star do you need to be to successfully jump? Does your course need to go through the center of the first star?
I am assuming that you've declared a distance limit on jumping.

Edwards

What if both factions are in the same solar system? Each one has a single habitable planet and five space stations (presumably each team would pick where they wanted them to be). The goal is to take control of your opponents' planet.

Would certainly solve the problem of FTL travel.

And you'd still, without FTL, have the problem of months/years transit between them.

Also- figure out how much food & supplies you'd need for one ship in one day, determine the duration of the journey, multiply one ship's requirements by number of days travel and then by number of ships. Think then on supply lines and the extreme vulnerability of supply lines stretching over millions or more kilometers of space that could reasonably expect attack from any of the three usable spatial dimensions, if you didn't choose to include supply ships in the expeditionary fleet.

What about floating hydroponic farms with engines? Could remedy some of the supply problems. They then become extremely vulnerable targets, however. Also very difficult to protect without the expansion of the fleet, then requiring more supplies, etc.

Depending on where the hypergates are placed in-system these supply considerations are just as concerning. What if you had to travel slower than light or even at the speed of light to Saturn's orbit from Earth's orbit to use the hypergate?

Edwards, on Oct 19 2005, 02:49 AM, said:

Given the method of interstellar travel, the only requirements are some fancy theoretical work and an engine capable of producing one g of thrust for one hour. The former is basically random chance, and the latter could be done now (at great expense). Four hundred years would give a noticable amount of time for colonization, though.
As for the space stations, I was referring to military installations in orbit around planets, in defensive roles (and do you, perchance, play AoK?).

One more question:
How precisely lined up with the target star do you need to be to successfully jump? Does your course need to go through the center of the first star?
I am assuming that you've declared a distance limit on jumping.

Edwards
View Post

Space stations then clearly fall under military expense, and should be described in as much detail as possible in the military section.

Let us say that you have to be nearly perfectly lined up with the two stars, down to less than a mile.

Which do you mean distance limit on jumping? We already have a map set up, a ring of 6 planets. Team A owns 5 of them, but is not prepared for war. Team B only owns one, but it has complete surprise and (at the start, at leasT) the same amount of rescources to spend as A.

Quote

What if both factions are in the same solar system? Each one has a single habitable planet and five space stations (presumably each team would pick where they wanted them to be). The goal is to take control of your opponents' planet.

Would certainly solve the problem of FTL travel.

Weve already carelessly bullcrapted FTL, we dont need to go into any more detail, and I certainly dont want to start over strategic planning.

Ok, as for moores law, lets just extrapolate 200 years into the future (since its already optimistic, this means the actual date will be a bit later than that). This is the maximum extent of the technology you can assume.

NebuchadnezzaR, on Oct 19 2005, 06:59 AM, said:

Ok, as for moores law, lets just extrapolate 200 years into the future (since its already optimistic, this means the actual date will be a bit later than that). This is the maximum extent of the technology you can assume.
View Post

Lets get this thing started this weekend, a few more days to tie up loose ends with questions on rules then yeah.