[Updated on: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:11]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

mazda wrote on Thu, 15 May 2003 11:08

Does anybody else out there consider the method of sweeping mines by chucking lots of small ships at them a little odd ? Mines are space at 1 per l.y. squared. Now this is a massive area. A ship (say maximum size 1000m in length) that detonates one mine would only really detonate one mine. So perhaps it's just the reduction in the minefield size after a hit that is wrong ?

To believe the unbelievable you have to have faith. You have to separate reality from game fantasy. Stars! is not a simulation of reality, it is merely a strategy game. Therefore the world of Stars! is quite different from real world physics. There are no size measurements of ships in Stars!. Ships are measured in mass not meters? Planets are not ruled by gravity. Colonists live without oxygen and lunch. And where have you ever seen a plumber in Stars! anywhere?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

I thought these things were OBVIOUS. After all, even the most dullwitted Smaugarian knows these things!

freakyboy wrote on Thu, 15 May 2003 19:05

Also consider other such "odd" things with minefields... Mines do not move... so how come minelayers sit in the middle... and yet the field expands How come mini and super mine layers don't get damage by detonating mines? Surely if mines can't damage them then thay can run through enemy minefields without worry? How come one ship sweeping a minefield on the far south can sweep the mines in the far north... yet has to be in orbit of planet to attack the starbase?

A minefield works under a hive mind - every mine in a minefield is linked to other ones. As soon as some are laid, all mines are pushed out to accommodate the new residents. As soon as some are lost, mines shift to fill in the gap to protect the all-important juicy center.

And mine layers are equipped with special technology which enables them to interact with the minefield's hive mind. This drives the exploding mines away from them (see bottom) meaning they are immune to their own explosions.

Quote:

And never mind the bloody plumbers, have you EVER EVER EVER seen even a single school? Are we to believe that in a universe where faster than light travel is possible there's not a single piece of information that isn't handed down generation to generation??

Information pills.

'Woah, I know FTL!'

Quote:

And wot about those stargates eh lads?? Home come instantaneous travel from point A to point B takes a full year????

Bureaucracy. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a stargate travel permit? 1 year!

As for the original objection, the answer is easy - the faster you go, the more attractive you are to mines. At warp 4, you can pass through harmlessly, not disturbing anything present. Due to the size of space relative to the size of the mines, the chance of hitting a mine that isn't actively pursuing you is infinitisimmely small. SS, because of their natural stealth, can go 1 warp faster, and SD have all their ships equipped with 'Someone Else's Mine' fields which allows them to go 2 warps faster. At warp 10, every mine in the field is after you, so you'd better duck! :duck:

What I want to know is, who are the Smaugarians, and why is one of my ships always named after them?!??!?!

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Some interesting "sci-fi" theories to try and explain minefields.

I realise now that trying to explain mine sweeping from an actual physical standpoint won't work.
Perhaps a discussion of the physics behind Stars minefields could be in another post.

Ok. To try and get back to the gist of what I was asking.

Do people think that sweeping minefields by using chaff is either too easy or too cheap ?
Do you agree that mine sweeping should be more difficult than just chucking a few cheap old ships at a field.
Does this tactic reduce the effectiveness of mines far below that which was intended in the games design ?

I'd just like opinions on how much you think it affects game play and whether that is good or bad.

M

Report message to a moderator

O.K. I'll add my two cents to the mix.

First, chaff cost both resources and minerals so I don't think reducing a minefield with chaff is too cheap. If you build overlapping minefields, then chaff sweeping is even more expensive. minefields are already very powerful and shouldn't dominate the game anymore than they do already. Everybody keeps theorizing about the scientific bases to support game mechanics but let's remember, there are no faster than light ships, space mines, Big Muthas or small ships built to act as chaff in space.

If you want to draw parallels let's do it to actual military history. Mines have always been an obstacle, not a barrier. They will slow down an enemy, inflict minor losses, but that is all. And as technology has improved, they have become less and less effective over time. During the Gulf war, the Iraqi minefields barely presented any obstacle at all.

This is true in Stars as well. Prior to decent armour and shields, SD minefields rule, and non-SD minefields are very strong. As Gatlings and Cruisers start to appear, they become less powerful. By the time chaff becomes very cheap and Nubians appear, mines only slow an enemy down a little.

I know this does not explain the "Science" behind mines, but it does how that Stars minefields have a similar effect to the "real" counterpart.

Paladin

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:34]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

IMHO, Chaff Sweeping should be considered a cheat, as it involves numbering of fleets on purpose and the other side can't really do anything to counter such form of an attack.

I disagree. Manipulating fleet numbers, at least in this case, is simply a matter of scheduling movement. This is pretty basic to operational planning and I see it as a feature of Stars!, not a bug

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 19 May 2003 17:06

Manipulating fleet numbers, at least in this case, is simply a matter of scheduling movement. This is pretty basic to operational planning and I see it as a feature of Stars!, not a bug

Yes, but exactly the same technique (fleet numbering) applies to battle board overload.

[Updated on: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:32]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

mazda wrote on Thu, 15 May 2003 12:08

Does anybody else out there consider the method of sweeping mines by chucking lots of small ships at them a little odd ?

Crash sweeping goes beyond using chaff to do it in any case.

You see the big, multiple fleet, chaff sweeps when a field has to go down *now* for a following fleet to immediately use.

Given longer time ranges you see sweepers (especially specialized designs) purposely do high speed runs into minefields. One of the earliest Stars! articles I ever saw on minefields talked about sending groups of individual beamers (BB or Nubian) into minefields at high warp - figuring that one of the five or six sent would make it far in, and then sweep most of the field.

From my POV you have four methods for getting an attack fleet through a minefield:
1. Wade through at the safe speed
PRO:
o Minimum number of fleets used
o No ship losses/damage (barring SD exploding standard fields)
CON:
o SLOW, very slow.
o Tends to telegraph your target to the opponent
o Easy for enemy to shift minelayers behind you and wall you in; this can be a very *bad* thing.

2. Charge in at a higher, potentially unsafe speed
PRO:
o Mininum number of fleets used
o Potential tactical surprise
CON:
o A minehit stops you. Kills chaff, most SFX designs, most non-B52 hull bombers, and generally messes things up. A heavy hit being nastier still depending on ship designs.

3. Advance use of sweepers. They could have "waded" in previously, or be doing a "charge and sweep" a year in advance of the main fleet. Various tactics available.
PRO:
o Generally safe for the attack fleet
o A good sweeping job might set up a potential "fork" attack.
[see below for meaning of "fork attack" if you don't know it.]
CON:
o Gives opponent notification that you're interested in that area
o Uses up fleets. And design slots if you have a specialized sweeper or skirmisher out there.

4. The classic "chaff sweep"
PRO:
o Usually safe for the attack fleet
o Potential tactical surprise
CON:
o Uses up a pile of fleets
o Chaff losses (minor, but still losses)

Option Zero of course is to kill his minelayers beforehand. OR to be playing against a Warmonger without allies or a certain MT-supplied part.

"fork attack": I think "fork" is a term borrowed from chess. Essentially getting an attack fleet into a position were it can make viable attacks on multiple targets (usually planets). Usually puts the opponent on the horns of a dilemma since (hopefully) he lacks the forces to successfully defend all the potential targets simutaneously. Options abound at this point.

- Kurt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Paladin wrote on Thu, 22 May 2003 12:52

You are correct. The term "fork" is used in chess when two or more pieces are theatened in the same move. The classic example: a knight moves into a square that threatens both the enemy king and queen in the same turn from a safe position. Therefore, the only move for the enemy is to move the king and lose the queen.

Yep. I've been forked many a Starsy night. But I wish you would keep your forking strategy in your chess. Someone just tried to fork me this last turn. And now after reading this, I am sure there will be others trying to fork me as well. This is going to be a big forking mess now.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Thu, 22 May 2003 11:30

Yep. I've been forked many a Starsy night. But I wish you would keep your forking strategy in your chess. Someone just tried to fork me this last turn. And now after reading this, I am sure there will be others trying to fork me as well. This is going to be a big forking mess now.

I love BlueTurbit - nobody makes me laugh more than he does.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Robert wrote on Fri, 23 May 2003 07:35

something about chaffsweeping detonating SD fields... i figured out, that when you chaffsweep a SD minefield and attack the same turn, you get the damage from detonation even if you swept the whole field. (i used 300 chaff to sweep a 40ly field, should have done the job). how can it be that still it detonates?

You didn't sweep the whole field with your chaff. Probably due to reduced speed in travelling only 40 ly.

Quote:

can this be avoided???

Send your split chaff at warp10 beyond the planet. I think 49 ly will work, perhaps 64 ly. And if your not lazy...
try a retest using this method and you should see different results. There should now be a fleet at the planet including any chaff that were included with this fleet, and the minefield is gone, and no explosion damage happened.
Now what would happen if the minelayer race sets you to friend?

Report message to a moderator

I thought detonation happened before sweeping, that would explain it. I know it's immediately after movement but before production, so in defending your planet you can detonate on enemy chaff and then churn out 200 of your own and whoop his socks off.

[Updated on: Sat, 24 May 2003 17:50]

Report message to a moderator

Coyote wrote on Sat, 24 May 2003 23:48

I thought detonation happened before sweeping, that would explain it. I know it's immediately after movement but before production, so in defending your planet you can detonate on enemy chaff and then churn out 200 of your own and whoop his socks off.

Crash sweeping is not the same as the normal sweeping that beams do, the crash and decrease of the minefield happens before the beam sweeping, but mabye still after detonation ...
Anyone testing that right now?

Regards,
mch

Report message to a moderator