Merging minefields |
Thu, 21 September 2006 16:34 |
|
skandal | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 25
Registered: August 2003 Location: Poland | |
|
Hello,
I face this problem every time playing SD and trying lay many minefields simultaneously on a small area. How to avoid merging these minefields?
Maybe somebody know a formula determinig it (when 2+ minefields are going to merge and where center of new minefield will be?) or a simple way to manage this occurance?
TIA & regards
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Merging minefields |
Fri, 22 September 2006 08:22 |
|
tgellan | | Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 75
Registered: May 2006 Location: Luxembourg | |
|
The problem arises at the moment you want to stock up the fields again. At that moment the fields will be of larger size than these 18ly. And they will merge as soon as the center of one minefield is inside another minefield of same minetype. The center of the new minefield is the gravitycenter of the two merging fields. This means, if both fields are of the same size, the new center is in the middle of the two old centers. Or on different sizes, the center is more toward the larger field.
So, here is how I handle minefields:
Moving minefields:
Just put the layer inside the minefield offset from the center into the direction you want the field to move. Speed of moving depends on mines layed compared to mines already in the field and the distance between the new mines and the center of the field. So, optimum is near the border of the field. This works best for small fields, or fields with high decay. Remember exploding fields can be considered having a high saturation, same for swept fields
Fields centered near planets tend to snap to the planets, I haven't yet figured out why...
Building a minebelt of overlapping, nonmerging fields:
Put the annual minelaying capacity into StarsCalculator, it tells you then the staturation size of the field, take half of that (radius) and add at least 1. This is the minimun distance of two adjacent fields which should not merge! For safety you may put them a bit farther out...
It becomes more tricky, if you use one (fleet of) layer(s) to refill fields periodically... You need to know the max size of your fields then, if you do, follow the upper method again. I never cared to get the exact formula for the size of these fields, in general I just testbed them with a specific minelayer design and refill intervall...
Sidenote:
Although this is the rule, I have already seen minefields of the same type (and same owner) being completely envelopped one by the other, without merging. But at that time I still used the b-patch, so it could be fixed in j-patch.
Hope this helps
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Merging minefields |
Sun, 24 September 2006 17:22 |
|
joseph | | Lt. Junior Grade | Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003 Location: Bristol | |
|
My guess is that people think they merge due to losing a minefield inside another.
Consider the 2 small minefields laid next to each other (18ly) as described above. After a couple of years you return to the centre of both to lay again.
First minelayer lays mines (makes field bigger), second minelayer is now in 2 fields, it lays and makes the first field even bigger.
A few turns later you are checking your minefields and hey - there is one big one where there should have been 2 (the second smaller one is by now tiny or non existant), so you assume they merged.
It is easy to lay overlapping fields, the problems start when the place you lay is in more than one field as you lose control over which field the mines are added to.
[Updated on: Sun, 24 September 2006 17:23]
Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"Report message to a moderator
|
|
|