smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

I have two PVCs and a MML in my team and expensive targeting computers. When combat begins they are firing away, cutting through bad guys very nicely. I'm down to one enemy ship that is closing on my vessels and for the life of me I can't understand why they aren't making a strategic withdrawl to stay out of range of my enemy's medium and short range weapons. Long story short my ships are destroyed trying to get/stay out of range.

Am I being too *****y or does this sound like something that should be fixed?

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

Also, here are some modding ideas

1. Dyson spheres/ring worlds:

For those of you who don't know, a dyson sphere is a sphere build all the way around a sun and a ringworld is...well, i think you get the idea.
It's both a ship and a planet. It could very well be armed.
There's no sun visible on the map with a dyson sphere.
There can be spheres inside spheres and vice rings inside rings.

2. Flotillas

Finding a relic around a sun is one thing. Finding a ship full of frozen people in the middle of nowhere is another. Find a whole *planet's worth* of people is yet another.

I guess that's all I have for now. Happy modding!

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

What were the enemies? I'm a little unclear on the setup. They aren't supposed to retreat for you, that's for sure (but that's not what I think you were having a problem with...)

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

The computers don't do anything *but* target. If you want movement you have to order it yourself..

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

The enemies were the buzzing robot guys (red variation).

I didn't want them to retreat, I just wanted them to maintain a constant distance.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

The Tan Ru Decimator - the ones with PVCs, right?

They're pretty fast... to maintain distance from them you need to have thrusters that are fast enough... depending on your ship type. If you had the Terran Frigate, I'd think you'd need Ion Impulser thrusters.

This is an example of why you put a fighter out front. If you have your fastest ship in the front when you start, and then they lock onto that, you can distract them. Fly that in one direction, the rest of your fleet in another.

But they have good targeting abilities, and if one of your own ships with the PVC is close enough to fire on them, they'll fire on you. The Multimissile has the range to plink away at them, but that does take some time.

If you don't have a ship to distract them, you'll need to pretty much run away, then turn to fire, then run away again. (like - not 'run away = retreat', but fly away from them)

But that's not the targeting computer. That's range and ship speed issues.

The Sardion Optimizer does increase your firing speed - the other does not. Targeting computers help out beam weapons the most, aside from the rate of fire increase.

Dual PVCs are huge fun, though!

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

I'm having trouble with putting "plink" and "multimissile" in the same sentence, myself..

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

I know - it's a scaling issue. Try the science ship with a multimissile and a good thruster vs the Yellow Kawangi. The scale resets nicely and 'plink' makes more sense (and the big side firing arc of the science ship makes for nice 'circle and fire' behavior.)

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

Neither a Dyson Sphere nor a Ringworld is scientifically plausible. The volume of raw material necessary to build even a small Ringworld (let alone a Dyson Sphere) would require that the builders plunder the complete mass of hundreds, possibly thousands of whole star systems — and then transport all of that mass to the building location, too. Even if that were physically possible, they'd obviously want to take that mass from the nearest star systems to where they were building it — so when they were done, there wouldn't be a single moon, planet, or even another star for thousands of light years in every direction. That Dyson Sphere or Ringworld would be the only object on the entire map.

The only other (ahem) "plausible" way to acquire the necessary mass would be if the builders had direct energy-to-matter conversion — but if they were that powerful, they wouldn't need to build such a thing.

Of course, plausibility doesn't necessarily matter in a game any more than it does in Science Fiction novels; but neither a Dyson Sphere nor a Ringworld could be portrayed correctly in the game anyway, because of the monstrous scale of such objects. It would have to enclose its star, not orbit it, which simply cannot be done in the game.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

I just can't let this one pass by...

If you are operating on a sufficiently advanced technological level (i.e. like Weird Worlds), then building a dyson sphere or ringworld is completely possible. It is still a massive undertaking, but the benefits are similarly massive. Consider a standard dyson sphere that uses some standard super-tensile sci-fi metal to get away with a 1-meter thick shell. The sphere would have only 280 times the mass of Earth. If you assume 1-1 elemental material conversion (again, a not-unreasonable assumption for any culture considering actually building one), then you could build the whole thing using just Jupiter and still have ~37 earth-masses of material left over. While you're at it you could filter out all of Jupiter's He-3 and use it to power the entire conversion process.

Of course, dyson spheres are really impractical. For one, your useable surface area on the inside is a small fraction of the actual area. A 1 Au radius sphere would have the internal surface area of 553 million earths, but most of it is uninhabitable. A ringworld is a better option. A ringworld with 1AU radius , a width of 10000km and a thickness of 100 meters has about the same mass as Venus. Even better, since Venus is solid you don't need any fancy atomic conversion stuff. Just send over a few Von Neumann nanobots and le them do their thing for a couple centuries. When it's done you'd still have 18440 times the surface area of Earth.

Some of the above calculations I borrowed from Zubrin's text Entering Space, which is a truly excellent book if this kind of thing interests you at all. Something Zubrin does not consider, however, is the idea of a small ringworld that doesn't enclose its host star. Like the rings from Bank's Cultureverse, these would simply orbit the sun. if you assume the axis of rotation for such a ring is nominally pointed directly at the sun, then inducing a slight axial tilt would allow for day/night cycles without having to add any kind of sunlight interruption mechanism (like on Niven's ringworld). They aren't quite as efficient as a real ringworld, but they are easier to build and you can use the first while building the second, etc. These could also be easily implemented in the game: just replace the planet graphic with a ringworld graphic and the appropriate description.

Regarding the "need" to build such a structure: No matter what kind of power plant is running your fridge, you still need a place to keep it. Having direct energy to matter conversion does no excuse a society from this necessity. Besides, A sufficient;y advanced society might build one because they want one, or just to see if they could do it. Maybe they would want one as a tourist destination, or to impress the less advanced species.
An alternative for modders who just want an impressive planet in-game to place cool tech on is to have a planet with several space elevators linked in geosync orbit. It still looks cool, requires advanced tech to build, and can easily be handled by the game engine.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

First of all: Regardless of construction materials (or where you get them), a Dyson Sphere would be useless because GRAVITY is impossible on the inner surface of a Dyson Sphere. {See the Dyson Sphere FAQ, or even the Wikipedia entry on Dyson Spheres.}

Secondly: Building either a Dyson Sphere or a Ringworld requires the ability to disassemble whole planets, the ability to convert matter into energy (and vice versa), and the ability to rebuild matter on an atomic level. So when you allude to "benefits" from building such a thing, you're talking about "benefits" that simply do not exist for anyone capable of building it. Think about it: What exactly are those "benefits?"

<font color="red">Capturing a larger percentage of the energy output of a star?</font> Why would you need it? If you have such godlike technology that you can convert matter into energy, then you already have an endless supply of energy.

<font color="red">18440 times the surface area of Earth?</font> Again, why do you need it? If you can disassemble whole planets, and can control matter with the ease necessary to fabricate your hypothetical (and impossibly dense) Dyson Sphere &amp; Ringworld building material, then why would you waste it building anything that's tethered to the gravity well of a star? You could far more easily build mobile planets orbited by their very own artificial micro-stars.

I repeat: Nobody who could build one would need to build one. It's just irrational.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

Unless of course, gravity manipulation is part of having sufficiently advanced technology.

It's not completely endless. The stars are still converting large amounts of matter into energy, and you will eventually run out of matter to convert.

Because you can?

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

Regarding the gravity issue, all you have to do is spin the sphere. This will get you a band of living area around the middle or the sphere orthogonal to the axis or rotation. The rest is still pretty unlivable, which is why a ringworld is a more efficient choice.

Regarding need, I've already answered this question. I will add something I felt was already obvious: With such a huge amount of living room, you could support a massive population in relative comfort (think trillions; "We need breathing room!)while only having to defend one system.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

No, it will not. "This" will get you nothing but a massive pile of wreckage, because spinning a Dyson Sphere would create destructive stresses that would tear it apart.

And you have not answered the "need question," because there is NO such "need." No race could achieve the level of technology necessary to build even a Ringworld without having already overcome all of the "needs" that might have made one desirable in the first place.

Please stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, and go read the Dyson Sphere FAQ, to which I've already given you a link. Star-enclosing Dyson Spheres are not scientifically plausible; and while a Ringworld might be plausible, it's still irrational because it's totally unnecessary to anyone who could build it. Both of them are Science FICTION.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

If you can build the sphere in the first place, then you already have materials that are likely to survive the stresses. Even if you don't, there's absolutely no reason that it has to be a rigid structure.

If you want your civilization to still be around a trillion years from now, then you will need to do something about entropy.

The FAQ you linked to isn't anywhere near as hostile as you are to the idea, which is a good thing, or else it wouldn't be very useful.

Except, of course, to people who are taking a very long term view of the universe and would rather not run out of energy until it cannot be avoided in any other way. Stars waste huge amounts of energy, and even if you can convert matter directly into energy, you will still eventually run out of temperature differences.

I'm wondering why this would be a problem.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

I am not "hostile" to the idea. I simply reject the notion that it's either plausible or rational, because it's not.

And while that FAQ isn't "hostile" to the idea, it does say all the same things I've already said, and it does support my contention that no race capable of building one would need one.

So does LOGIC.

IN Science Fiction, it isn't a problem. Neither are any of Science Fiction's many other implausible fantasies — like replicators, transporters, universal translators, inter-breeding species, and faster-than-light speed travel for that matter. I didn't object to the presence of such things in Science Fiction, I merely pointed out that they are fiction.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

ie. You are hostile to the idea, as you continually ignore all arguments contrary to your position.

No, it doesn't say the same things that you've already said. It lists several reasons one might want to build a Dyson sphere, and several different structures that would be possible. It also says nothing about not needing one except that it would require supertechnology to build a rigid Dyson sphere. It also explicitly states that the material requirements are considerably lower than your initial claim that you'd need to use all the solar systems, including their stars, within the nearest thousand lightyears.

In order to claim that logic supports you, you must first supply a logically sound argument.

No, you certainly objected to the presence of Dyson spheres, or else you wouldn't be so openly hostile to the idea that there are legitimate uses for them. Openly hostile to the point where you aren't even acknowledging your opponents' arguments.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

I find it terribly amusing that you think you have any "argument," because I haven't seen you present anything but illogical assumptions. I find it even more amusing that you are whining about me being "hostile," for doing no more than what you are yourself doing: DISAGREEING.

In any event, I have had quite enough of your refusal to acknowledge reason, and I am done participating in this thread. Don't bother responding to me unless you're doing it just to see yourself talk, because I won't be reading it.

And by all means, continue to believe whatever insipid nonsense you wish.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

It would be interesting to note two things:

1) There is a massively popular science-fiction work that discusses in fairly great detail exactly *why* a super-advanced civilization *might* need to build ringworlds, at least, if not dyson spheres. (Just take a wild stab in the dark as to what I'm talking about. I'll even give you a hint: it's a ring that floats over one's head.)

2) The frequency at which the phrase (or the ideas communicated by such) "Don't bother responding to me unless you're doing it just to see yourself talk, because I won't be reading it." is used on the internet, and the hyprocisy rate thereof.

IOW, Hi TaoLibra. I know you're reading this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

How are my assumptions illogical? Unlike you, I've actually read both the links you posted earlier in this thread. Unlike you, I'm not so utterly fixed on the idea that a Dyson sphere is a rigid body that I refuse to even consider other construction methods. Tell me, what superstrong materials are needed to make large sections of independently orbiting habitats that have energy collectors to gather aas much radiation as possible? Unlike you, I'm actually aware that any civilization that wants to delay the heat-death of the universe is going to go to drastic lengths to conserve as much energy as possible.

Quote:

I'm complaining that you are being hostile because you are yelling and ignoring everybody's arguments. If you don't realize that writing in all caps is yelling, then perhaps you need to go read up on standard netiquette and lurk for a few months before posting.

You've presented no logical argument, so you can hardly accuse me of refusing to acknowledge reason when I have dealt with every single one of your points. Perhaps you should actually respond to a single one of my rebuttals, or you could implicitly concede as you've just done.

I always enjoy it when somebody refuses to even respond to their opponents' arguments, then claims victory. That's as clear a concession as can ever be gained on the internet.

This is the standard statement of a person who knows that they have no argument. I've outlined exactly what uses a Dyson sphere could have. All you've done is stick your fingers in your ears, ignore the calculations that were presented in the links that you yourself presented, and declared victory (With lots of extremely annoying all caps, italics, bold text, and coloured fonts to boot). That's an argument style worthy of a twelve-year old.

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

All that just cause somone thought it might be a bit interesting to add some new planet types in the game.

I mean hell guys, it is just a game.

(I registered to the forums just to say that btw)

Re: smart targeting computers, my tuchus.
 

LoL.. This thread is amusing.

Seems to me it would be much, much easier to use orbiting space mirrors to focus sunlight at the planets where the energy is needed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif