Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » SD » Crash sweeping to the centre of a detonating field (split from "The necessity for missiles"
Crash sweeping to the centre of a detonating field (split from "The necessity for missiles" Sat, 16 October 2004 13:07 Go to next message
Robert is currently offline Robert

 
Ensign

Messages: 361
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany
When fighting SD you cant chaffsweep that easily!

If the minefield is centered at a planet and detonated, and you chaffsweep and attack the same turn, you still get damage from the detonation regardles of how many chaff you use to crash!

this way you can either prepare the attack when sweeping 1ly from the planet the turn before, or you will lose all the chaff due to detonation! All ships the SD gates in will be damaged, too - but as production is after detonation he can have the chaff he produced the same turn, while the attacker has none.

So - IMO SD is the least vulnerable PRT regarding to chaffsweeping Smile

Cool

[Mod edit: changed topic title]


[Updated on: Wed, 20 October 2004 08:16] by Moderator





2b v !2b -> ?

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sat, 16 October 2004 21:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Orca

 
Chief Warrant Officer 1

Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ...
Robert wrote on Sat, 16 October 2004 10:07

When fighting SD you cant chaffsweep that easily!

If the minefield is centered at a planet and detonated, and you chaffsweep and attack the same turn, you still get damage from the detonation regardles of how many chaff you use to crash!


No, that means you just didn't use enough chaff to eliminate all the mines. Use more chaff next time. Chaff sweeping against an SD just means you need more chaff (hence more fleets). Heavies and speed bumps are very easily hit by chaff at high warp, which makes it that much easier to chaff sweep.



Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 04:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert is currently offline Robert

 
Ensign

Messages: 361
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany
Twisted Evil

So then explain this testbed:

SD has orbit with minilayer (80 a turn), lays a minefield and detonates. an IS has a fleet of 500 chaff 80ly from it.

calculation shows i need around 86 chaff (8 hits) to sweep the field (Warp9), so 500 should do the job just fine Very Happy

I run the 500 chaff to the planet, next turn they are all dead (no battle happened) and the minefield has 80 mines, exactly what the SD can lay in a single turn.

(I did _not_ forget to split the 500 chaff before) Laughing

So.... maybe I am still right?

Robert

Edit:
PS: I have an explanation for this, but it is not more than a guess: The minefield _is_ reduced to 0 mines, but before (check order of events) the minefield is "deleted" detonation happens. Maybe stars checks if distance to center is <= field radius, and both is zero so you are hit even if the field has zero mines...
Just an idea...



[Updated on: Sun, 17 October 2004 04:46]




2b v !2b -> ?

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 06:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Micha

 

Messages: 2340
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
Orca wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 03:46

Robert wrote on Sat, 16 October 2004 10:07

When fighting SD you cant chaffsweep that easily!

If the minefield is centered at a planet and detonated, and you chaffsweep and attack the same turn, you still get damage from the detonation regardles of how many chaff you use to crash!


No, that means you just didn't use enough chaff to eliminate all the mines. Use more chaff next time.

I didn't believe Robert either, and I remember he brought this up some time ago before and Orca's same response.

I ran a testbed last night, similar to Roberts. 200 chaff crash into a 11ly radius minefield at warp10, less than 100 are needed to sweep the field, the MML in orbit is not adding more mines.

The next turn the minefield is gone, no sweeper ships left in orbit, no battle with the SD ship.
In the message pane I read that several fleets have "completed their assigned orders", which means reaching orbit. They are not there, browsing further through the messages I see: "fleet#x has been annihilated in a standard minefield at Space (x,y)", where (x,y) is where the centre of the minefield was last turn.

Link to testbed.

However! I ran the testbed 10 times and once the fleets where not killed! Weird.
Tried with jRC4, no difference, chaff dies in the non-existent minefield ...

mch

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 07:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert is currently offline Robert

 
Ensign

Messages: 361
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany

Thanks for your trust in my skill Crying or Very Sad

But anyway - I am surprised 1 in 10 times they survived...

Still - now my best SD trick is out in the wild Confused



2b v !2b -> ?

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Micha

 

Messages: 2340
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
Robert wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 13:31


Thanks for your trust in my skill Crying or Very Sad


Smile It's not that I don't trust your skill, it's just that I've played several games as SD and never came across this ... Maybe because my enemies didn't crash sweep my fields or I never detonated them because I had superior forces waiting for them ... I don't remember any occasions where I could have found out ...
Anyway, it's always best to test yourself before assuming things. Like someone once told me that detonations effect packets ... they don't.

Quote:

But anyway - I am surprised 1 in 10 times they survived...

Point is that even this 1/10 should be impossible, the program should always react in the same way: either the "zero mines" minefield kills the chaff or it doesn't. You can't have both ...
Too bad I overwrote the backup of that turn ... Sad

Quote:

Still - now my best SD trick is out in the wild Confused

That was the best you got?? Razz
Wink

mch


[Updated on: Sun, 17 October 2004 13:30]

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 16:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1180
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Micha wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 12:49

However! I ran the testbed 10 times and once the fleets where not killed! Weird.

The probability to hit a minefield of radius 1 at W-9 is about 0.015. Sending 200 chaff will still yield a prob of about 0.05 of minefield not swept. That's almost opposite to your results. Weird indeed. Confused
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 17:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Quote:


If the minefield is centered at a planet and detonated, and you chaffsweep and attack the same turn, you still get damage from the detonation regardles of how many chaff you use to crash!


I had no problem crash sweeping a suprise minefield by Alien in Trans game. (Being HE I had cheaper crash sweepers) I did it quick and lazy with the last bit of chaff going in orbit to make sure my line wasn't missing the planet by a ly. (Most went past planet at warp 10)

Only an SD like Aliens can suprise help a friend by gating in and throwing up a big minefield (that overwhelms the sweepers) the turn before you want to attack. (Move and lay same turn).

...

On the SD setting opponent to friend to stop sweeping (and get detonating) a counter mentioned before is to have reserve fleet(s) with orders to suprise gate into the SD's world(s) to counter suprise if set to friend.

...

Back on topic, I agree everyone should have some missiles to force an opponent to counter them, and those with SD slowdown toys (or fighting against SD slowdowns) have more useful missiles.

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 18:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Micha

 

Messages: 2340
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
multilis wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 23:39

Quote:


If the minefield is centered at a planet and detonated, and you chaffsweep and attack the same turn, you still get damage from the detonation regardles of how many chaff you use to crash!


I had no problem crash sweeping a suprise minefield by Alien in Trans game. (Being HE I had cheaper crash sweepers) I did it quick and lazy with the last bit of chaff going in orbit to make sure my line wasn't missing the planet by a ly. (Most went past planet at warp 10)


If the field wasn't set to detonate you won't have had a problem indeed.

Quote:

Only an SD like Aliens can suprise help a friend by gating in and throwing up a big minefield (that overwhelms the sweepers) the turn before you want to attack. (Move and lay same turn).


Why "only an SD like Aliens"? Any SD can gate in and throw up a big minefield ... Confused

mch


[Updated on: Sun, 17 October 2004 18:24]

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 18:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Orca

 
Chief Warrant Officer 1

Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ...
Micha wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 03:49


However! I ran the testbed 10 times and once the fleets where not killed! Weird.
Tried with jRC4, no difference, chaff dies in the non-existent minefield ...



Very interesting. It's been awhile since I played SD in a PBEM, and I remember being chaff swept while detonating and having the chaff survive. I could be misremembering of course, considering how long it's been. The specifics of the problem are quite interesting as well. I stand corrected. Smile



Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Sun, 17 October 2004 21:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Minefield was probably set to detonate. Was completely swept, never got a record of sweeping one remaining mine.

Quote:

why SD like Aliens


Meant any SD such as for example the one Alien had.

Mentioned Alien and Trans game to show real game in verifiable context to back up claim. In early days of posting here ideas that I knew were sound were called crazy/newbie by others.


[Updated on: Sun, 17 October 2004 21:13]

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Mon, 18 October 2004 02:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert is currently offline Robert

 
Ensign

Messages: 361
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany
Micha wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 19:29

Robert wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 13:31


Thanks for your trust in my skill Crying or Very Sad


Quote:

Still - now my best SD trick is out in the wild Confused

That was the best you got?? Razz
Wink

mch


It is a trick because only very few know about it. If everyone knew it I would relate it more to the field of "tactics".

anyway... I dont think I am a bad SD player Wink


[Updated on: Mon, 18 October 2004 02:27]




2b v !2b -> ?

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Mon, 18 October 2004 02:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert is currently offline Robert

 
Ensign

Messages: 361
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany
multilis wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 23:39

On the SD setting opponent to friend to stop sweeping (and get detonating) a counter mentioned before is to have reserve fleet(s) with orders to suprise gate into the SD's world(s) to counter suprise if set to friend.


I had that idea, too.... So if the enemy is set to friend he cant crashsweep but gate in. So on the planets he might be willing to attack just build a 100/250 gate and the ships that arrive will be heavily damaged and hit by minefields and face the starbase - without chaff no real tactic Smile

Never had the chance to try this, but you are right, a nice idea Twisted Evil

[Mod edit: fixed quote]


[Updated on: Wed, 20 October 2004 08:17] by Moderator





2b v !2b -> ?

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Mon, 18 October 2004 05:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1180
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Robert wrote on Mon, 18 October 2004 08:31

I had that idea, too.... So if the enemy is set to friend he cant crashsweep but gate in. So on the planets he might be willing to attack just build a 100/250 gate and the ships that arrive will be heavily damaged and hit by minefields and face the starbase - without chaff no real tactic Smile

Caveat: ship movement happens before building, so ships will arrive through previous gates. Besides, late game AMP Nub is not heavy: 160-220 kt. Gated through 300 starting gates to 100 gates it gets about 4%(TS-10) - 24%(IS-10) damage, plus 300 per ship (or 3% armor through shields) by detonation. Not a big deal IMO.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Mon, 18 October 2004 11:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Micha wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 05:49

Orca wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 03:46

Robert wrote on Sat, 16 October 2004 10:07

When fighting SD you cant chaffsweep that easily!

If the minefield is centered at a planet and detonated, and you chaffsweep and attack the same turn, you still get damage from the detonation regardles of how many chaff you use to crash!


No, that means you just didn't use enough chaff to eliminate all the mines. Use more chaff next time.

I didn't believe Robert either, and I remember he brought this up some time ago before and Orca's same response.


However! I ran the testbed 10 times and once the fleets where not killed! Weird.
Tried with jRC4, no difference, chaff dies in the non-existent minefield ...

mch


There could be another reason, I think. When do minefields decay? Now that I look, I don't see it on the OoE list. I see no other option to expain the 1 time the fleets were not killed. Although, I have messed with chaff sweeping enough to know that those sort of odds are unlikely, but not impossible.

Without cracking open the files, what was the appoximate angle in relation to x axis to the target? The closer you approach zero x axis movement "through" the minefield, and in the entire ship move, the less likely you are to hit a mine. I have confirmed this several times in my own test beds. I have even "missed" a large minefield with 200+ chaff, while my war fleet hit it...

So, maybe you only completely swept it once. Maybe decay happens after movement and SD Detonation, but before mine laying. Could that explain it all?

-Matt
...




Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Mon, 18 October 2004 11:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Micha wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 12:29

Robert wrote on Sun, 17 October 2004 13:31


Thanks for your trust in my skill Crying or Very Sad


Smile It's not that I don't trust your skill, it's just that I've played several games as SD and never came across this ...



Me either. I think I would have noticed that in the last game...but maybe the minefields weren't centered at the planets. I definately don't chaff sweep to the center of the field, but I usually send ships to it. Either to kill the layer, or attack the planet.

You were probably kidding, but something like this, if true, would be considered a bug, and worth proving. So, I'm sure that was Micha was after.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Mon, 18 October 2004 14:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Micha

 

Messages: 2340
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
mlaub wrote on Mon, 18 October 2004 17:10

There could be another reason, I think. When do minefields decay? Now that I look, I don't see it on the OoE list.


It is in the SOoE, at least on the one at www.Starsfaq.com.

  1. Fleets move (run out of fuel, hit minefields (fields reduce as they are hit), stargate, wormhole travel)
  2. SD Minefields detonate (possibly damaging again fleet that hit minefield during movement)
  3. Fleet battles (with possible tech gain)
  4. Mine Laying
  5. Minefield Decay
Quote:

Without cracking open the files, what was the appoximate angle in relation to x axis to the target? The closer you approach zero x axis movement "through" the minefield, and in the entire ship move, the less likely you are to hit a mine. I have confirmed this several times in my own test beds. I have even "missed" a large minefield with 200+ chaff, while my war fleet hit it...

Angle was around 30.

Quote:

So, maybe you only completely swept it once. Maybe decay happens after movement and SD Detonation, but before mine laying. Could that explain it all?

That order is correct but note that there was no minelaying that turn.
It is just weird that it happened 1 out off 10 that the fleet didn't get hit in the centre ... Like Iztok mentioned it should be the other way around. The chance of the chaff in the testbed not sweeping the entire field was very small ... Confused

mch
...



[Updated on: Mon, 18 October 2004 14:29]

Report message to a moderator

Re: The necessity for missiles Thu, 28 October 2004 09:55 Go to previous message
LEit is currently offline LEit

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT
Micha wrote on Mon, 18 October 2004 14:28

4. Mine Laying
5. Minefield Decay


There is something wrong here. If this were strictly true, you would lay 150 mines, and then 10 would decay, and your new field would have 140 mines, this does not happen.

Ahh, the order of events lists sweeping not decay. Sweeping does indeed happen after laying. Decay happens before laying, and sometime after detonation of SD fields (actually, probably at the same time, IOW Stars! looks through every field, does the det work if that flag is set, and then does decay - but that's just a guess).


[Updated on: Thu, 28 October 2004 09:55]




- LEit

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: When to lay heavy mines?
Next Topic: SD Mine Limit
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Oct 21 02:24:33 EDT 2017