Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

If someone Boards a ship with self-destruct (SD), then the SD destroys both ships. Even if the boardee is an escort and the boarder is a mother ship!

So, if SDs are so powerful, why can't a ship that is clearly doomed move up next to an enemy ship and initiate the SD, thereby taking out the hated enemy? (Or at least doing a heck of a lot of damage.) After all, you can commit noble suicide by ramming, and you can even plan for it with explosive warheads.

A rational SD should only be powerful enough to destroy the ship that carries it. Collateral damage should occur to ALL other ships next to it, and should be rated according to the size of the ship with the SD.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

If you have escorts bording your SDs, put Defence stations on your SDs.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

In this I definitly agree. Damage should affect the spaces (perhaps3, with 1 being most, 2some and 3 least amount of damage) around the ship. Similar to the way it was handled in Moo2. Bigger the ship, bigger the 'boom'. Maybe even different levels of SSD for more damage/resistance to virus weapons(see below paragraph).

Also it would be nice if there was a way to destoroy the SSD without destroying the rest of the ship so capture is possible. Maybe increasing the tech tree in computers? A virus that disables the SSD command sub-routine or something like that.

------------------
"The Empress took your name away," said Chance.
Owen smiled coldly. "It wasn't hers to take. I'm a Deathstalker until I die. And we never forget a slight or an enemy." -Owen Deathstalker.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If someone Boards a ship with self-destruct (SD), then the SD destroys both ships. Even if the boardee is an escort and the boarder is a mother ship!
So, if SDs are so powerful, why can't a ship that is clearly doomed move up next to an enemy ship and initiate the SD, thereby taking out the hated enemy? (Or at least doing a heck of a lot of damage.) After all, you can commit noble suicide by ramming, and you can even plan for it with explosive warheads.
A rational SD should only be powerful enough to destroy the ship that carries it. Collateral damage should occur to ALL other ships next to it, and should be rated according to the size of the ship with the SD.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Consider that the boarding ship has lowered its defenses and has moved close enough to dock with the SDD ship. Also, the SDD is designed with the boarding problem im mind, so it would be way overpowered.
Consider a typical ship. Supply storage is enough for at least 100 nukes. Tons of Antimatter torpedoes. Let loose the antimatter or detonate all 100 nukes when the unshielded enemy ship sits 1meter from your hull, and ask yourself how well it would take that kind of a beating.
Blammo.

But ships at range have their shields up, and are mobile, so you can't reach them from where you are http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

I would suggest giving your SDDs a warhead ability, so they can do 1500 or so damage during a ramming. Your ship will be destroyed, but you get to do extra damage by delf-destructing.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

Yep, there ought to be Collateral Damage in SE IV combat. Not just when ships self-destruct but when they blow up from any cause. Just check all the adjacent squares and distribute damage as if they were hit with a weapon. This would make it more dangerous to cram your ships as close together as possible for PDC massing and to gang up on an out-numbered enemy. If there were a percentage setting in SETTINGS.TXT for this you could control it or just turn it off if you didn't want it.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

Wouldn't that have be a rather large explosion to give collateral damage? Since the ships only occupy one space and a planet takes up 4 spaces how close can they be?

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

A planet may be 4 squares across, but then again, the moons are only 4 squares away from the planet, and stars are 4 squares across http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Depending on your reference, combat squares are anywhere from 1KM in size to 1 light-second in size.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
Wouldn't that have be a rather large explosion to give collateral damage? Since the ships only occupy one space and a planet takes up 4 spaces how close can they be? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would have to be a large explosion for a direct hit with a weapon to do much damage, too. In all cases we're talking about very high energies. This might not seem realistic but I don't think ramming is realistic either. Think of its effect on game play:

1) You would no longer be able to cram your ships cheek-by-jowl to concentrate PDC protection or fire-power without a balancing risk.

2) The objection about people using boarding frigates to take out dreadnoughts with a SDD would be at least partly balanced by the difficulty of arranging your attack to keep other ships out of harms way. How does a boarding frigate close in without getting destroyed? With support from other capital ships that might be damaged if they are too close when the enemy ship is boarded. But if they aren't close enough the boarding frigate will probably be vaporized before it can board. The "cost-benefit" of this tactic could be completely changed.

3) "Suicide" attacks will begin to really mean something. If you can self-destruct (or just ram and blow up) against an enemy formation and damage MANY ships for the loss of your one it will suddenly be a truly dangerous and scary tactic. Maybe there ought to be some sort of morale penalty to make it more costly for the source empire. Formations might have to be redesigned to account for this, too. More space between ships to minimize damage -- which would make individual ships more vulnerable.

It has lots of potential. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Consider that the boarding ship has lowered its defenses and has moved close enough to dock with the SDD ship.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The boarding ship had to lower its shields but it didn't lose all its armor and structural integrity. And I thought the boarding component was like pods for space marines, which is why it isn't reusable. So the boarding ship doesn't have to dock with the SDD ship.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Also, the SDD is designed with the boarding problem im mind, so it would be way overpowered.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but not THAT overpowered! An escort taking out a mother ship covered with organic armor??!! Why the heck would anyone even bother to make any other weapons? (Weenies could research master computer first.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
But ships at range have their shields up, and are mobile, so you can't reach them from where you are
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They aren't at range if you're ramming them.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
I would suggest giving your SDDs a warhead ability, so they can do 1500 or so damage during a ramming. Your ship will be destroyed, but you get to do extra damage by delf-destructing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
See comment above about escorts and mother ships.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The boarding ship had to lower its shields but it didn't lose all its armor and structural integrity. And I thought the boarding component was like pods for space marines, which is why it isn't reusable. So the boarding ship doesn't have to dock with the SDD ship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The explanation since SE3 was that you either lose all your troopers to the defences on board (if you lose), or the troopers remain on board the captured ship to pilot & maintain control. The troopers could still get aboard directly from a forced docking and not be reusable.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, but not THAT overpowered! An escort taking out a mother ship covered with organic armor??!! Why the heck would anyone even bother to make any other weapons? (Weenies could research master computer first.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Attempting to board a small ship with a SDD is just silly. You lose any shields plus your troopers, at best. If you have a mothership with organic armor, ram your way through the little ships and regenerate your armor.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But ships at range have their shields up, and are mobile, so you can't reach them from where you are
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They aren't at range if you're ramming them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was talking about your "Collateral damage should occur to ALL other ships next to it" statement. You are not ramming the "other ships", and you aren't being boarded by the "other ships" in the case of SD.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, but not THAT overpowered! An escort taking out a mother ship covered with organic armor??!! Why the heck would anyone even bother to make any other weapons? (Weenies could research master computer first.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look, 1000 supplies gives you 100 CSMs.
100 damage times 100 CSMs gives you 10,000 damage.
Detonate all your ammo as a SDD, and you do twice the damage of a Black Hole's center!
A 10 KT SDD could hold more than enough CSM warheads(without missile bodies) to destroy anything.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 01 June 2001).]

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

I think the self-destruct works well. After all, for that escort to take out your supper-dreadnaught it would first have to wipe out all of the dreadnaught's sheilds. Secondly, with out the self-destruct, that little escort would let the other player steal your nice, shiny, new super-dreadnaught and go prancing over to your homeworld.

------------------
Assume you have a 1kg squirrel
E=mc^2
E=1kg(3x10^8m/s)^2=9x10^16J
which, if I'm not mistaken, is equivilent to roughly a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.
Fear the squirrel.

[This message has been edited by Spoo (edited 01 June 2001).]

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

Sudden, intesting idea:

Ship capture could be a devestating weapon against an opponent who uses organic tech. Even if they do use sheilds, they'd be using less than other players to make room for their organic armor.

------------------
Assume you have a 1kg squirrel
E=mc^2
E=1kg(3x10^8m/s)^2=9x10^16J
which, if I'm not mistaken, is equivilent to roughly a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.
Fear the squirrel.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If someone Boards a ship with self-destruct (SD), then the SD destroys both ships. Even if the boardee is an escort and the boarder is a mother ship!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think the self-destruct works well. After all, for that escort to take out your supper-dreadnaught it would first have to wipe out all of the dreadnaught's sheilds. Secondly, with out the self-destruct, that little escort would let the other player steal your nice, shiny, new super-dreadnaught and go prancing over to your homeworld.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spoo, he's complaining that the Escort's SDD is killing the Baseship, when the Baseship tries to capture.
IE, the basehip drops its shields to send troops over, and the escort self-destructs.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 01 June 2001).]

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

Ooooooh. Well that's silly; who'd ever what to capture an escort? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

------------------
Assume you have a 1kg squirrel
E=mc^2
E=1kg(3x10^8m/s)^2=9x10^16J
which, if I'm not mistaken, is equivilent to roughly a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.
Fear the squirrel.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

LOL... you got a point. Unless that escort has some great little tech I REEEEEEAAALY wanted, I would rather blow that little twirp to the next black hole! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

Hi, I'm new to this forum, but not new to SE. When I saw all the fuss over the SDD's and troops, I thought to myself, if you have a ship with a crew, arn't all the crew certified to a degree to protect the ship? I remember playing a game that was called Begin2.exe a long long time ago. It was all Dos based.
It was based on Star Trek ships roughly with different sized ships (dreadnaught, destroyer, escorts ect...). All these different ships had different amounts of crew according to their size. You could beam boarding parties over to a jacked up ship and capture it if you had enough crew to overtake theirs.
I'm not one for micromanagement, but if the basic design of a Dreadnaught held say...5000 people (or whatever you determined in the settings file) so be its ability to board. Forget the boarding parties and defense stations, they seem frvilous to anything close to reality. You could assume a computer controled ship had an android crew or whatever floats your boat. Now if you want a ship for boarding, then put pieces that allow additional crew space. Say a 1000 per pod or section that you wish to add into the design.
You could easily balance people from putting the max amount of people on a ship with the morality effect of a ship with "X" amount of people lost in battle. I remember in that begin game, once the shields were gone, you started to loose crew for damage taken to the hull. The more you had, the more you lost in variance to the impact bLast.
Now you could go all out and require facilities to be built on the planets to recruit soldiers, but I don't like micromanagement. Yet, you could leave something like that up to the ministers, or just turn it off in the settings. All depends on how much control you want in your game. The skys the limit in this game.
Sorry for such a long post...
Steve

PS: What ship dosn't have the little red button? None of that sacraligious mumbojumbo in my fleet. Besides, every ship has the ability to destory itself, it's called a 'fine tunner' to the &lt;Copyright infringement&gt;Warp Drive &lt;/Copyright infringement&gt; aka a sledge hammer). http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by Steven-n-Donna (edited 01 June 2001).]

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deathstalker:
Also it would be nice if there was a way to destoroy the SSD without destroying the rest of the ship so capture is possible. Maybe increasing the tech tree in computers? A virus that disables the SSD command sub-routine or something like that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be a good idea. Also the possibility that the self destruction device fails (hmm, I forgot the damn password for the command of self destruction!) would be nice. The way it is now (the same was true for SE III), boarding IMO is just not worth the effort!

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

Steven-n-Donna:
Although crew quarters don't have it in their description, and they don't have an ability for it, every crew quarter provides 16 defence for your ship

Boarding parties I, give 20 attack/defense.

So, you need at least two boarding parties to win a capture against anything larger than an LC, unless you start punching holes in the hull to destroy crew quarters.

Crew quarters are full of hundreds of ensign doolittles, who defend their ship with the hot coffee they're drinking and anything they can grab http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I remember in that begin game, once the shields were gone, you started to loose crew for damage taken to the hull. The more you had, the more you lost in variance to the impact bLast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, once your shields are down, every hit has a chance of blowing away your crew quarters, killing everyone not on duty http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif The more you have, the more likely that one of them will be hit.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I'm not one for micromanagement, but if the basic design of a Dreadnaught held say...5000<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, in SE4, crew are generally used to fly the ship, and elite space marines are used to take over a ship... defense stations are stuff like ceiling-mount bLaster turrets in the halls.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

Does a master computer provide boarding defense?

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Q:
That would be a good idea. Also the possibility that the self destruction device fails (hmm, I forgot the damn password for the command of self destruction!) would be nice. The way it is now (the same was true for SE III), boarding IMO is just not worth the effort!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, another request we've made many times before. Even the 'Quantum Detonator" in MOO II had a 50 percent chance to fail. There ought to be a chance of the SDD in this game failing, too, if only 20 percent or something like that.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marty Ward:
Does a master computer provide boarding defense?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know, no. This is the trade-off for immunity to Crew ConVersion.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, another request we've made many times before. Even the 'Quantum Detonator" in MOO II had a 50 percent chance to fail. There ought to be a chance of the SDD in this game failing, too, if only 20 percent or something like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The self-destruct does have a chance to fail. If it takes damage (easy to do once the shields are down) then it will not work http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

There's no dice required. If you want to capture a ship that has a SDD, get your gunners to carefully cut out the offending device.

When I'm playing a Pirate race, Self-Destruct Devices have approximately a 75% failure rate http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 01 June 2001).]

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

I find it's pretty hard to nail a SDD in a large ship especially if the ship mounts components that take up a large amount of the available volume. If I understand SEIV damage correctly, once you damage an internal component all further damage that gets past armor or shields will continue to damage that component until it is destroyed. While I'll agree that a larger component should be more likey to hit I think it's kind of bogus that all subsequent penetrating shots will continue to damage that subsystem. So when attacking larger ships especially those with the larger weapon mounts it seems that you generally tag the weapons and anything else useful that's bigger than 10kt.

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

You guys keep missing my point. I'm not saying that I'm displeased with SDDs from a game-play point of view. I agree with suicide_junkie: it is unlikely that you'd want to board an escort with a mother ship, so it doesn't really matter to the game play. But what bothers me is that a super-powerful SDD doesn't make sense from a story-line point of view. I'll say it again: if SDDs are so powerful, then why wouldn't an empire just make ramming suicide escorts with SDDs that could be detonated just before impact? They could destroy any other ship. For that matter, why not SDD-equipped fighters?

Of course, I don't want this to be allowed in the game, because it would ruin it! So, what I'm asking for is a logical pseudo-scientific story-line explanation for why SDDs don't work this way. And I really feel that no one has even attempted to give one yet. (For instance, suicide_junkie's explanation for why SDDs can be so powerful only reinforces my point, from the story-line point of view.)

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So, what I'm asking for is a logical pseudo-scientific story-line explanation for why SDDs don't work this way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>from components.txt file
Name := Self - Destruct Device
Description := Computer controlled device which overloads a ship's engines and destroys the ship. This will be used automatically if a ship is successfully boarded, destroying both your ship and the attacking ship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given this is the explaination for the SDD, then it kinda makes sense the engines would be unusable for manuvering during the terminal overload stage, which would be required to get it close enough to the enemy ship.

If you accept this you have to ignore the fact that the SDD still works when the engines are destroyed, but you asked for psuedo-science, you got psuedo-science. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Geo

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But what bothers me is that a super-powerful SDD doesn't make sense from a story-line point of view. I'll say it again: if SDDs are so powerful, then why wouldn't an empire just make ramming suicide escorts with SDDs that could be detonated just before impact? They could destroy any other ship. For that matter, why not SDD-equipped fighters?
Of course, I don't want this to be allowed in the game, because it would ruin it! So, what I'm asking for is a logical pseudo-scientific story-line explanation for why SDDs don't work this way. And I really feel that no one has even attempted to give one yet. (For instance, suicide_junkie's explanation for why SDDs can be so powerful only reinforces my point, from the story-line point of view.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, for a fighter, 10Kt is most of your space. You'd have a devastating ramming ship with no ability to catch and ram an undamaged target http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

How about this for an explanation. Ditch the stack of nuclear warheads as the SDD, and have a large tank of antimatter.
Shields would be able to deflect the antimatter just like any normal interplanetary gas (such as solar winds).
Against armor, the antimatter annihilates with the matter in the armor/hull, and boom you die.

So, you have to wait for a boarding attempt, when the enemy drops their shields before you can self-destruct with much effect.

All ships could be imagined to have basic particle deflectors/shielding to keep their hulls from ablating away when they cross a solar system in one month (thats 1% of the speed of light http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Given this is the explaination for the SDD, then it kinda makes sense the engines would be unusable for manuvering during the terminal overload stage, which would be required to get it close enough to the enemy ship.
If you accept this you have to ignore the fact that the SDD still works when the engines are destroyed,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As you've shown, the description is not quite accurate, and it is also the easiest item to change in the game http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.
So what I think we need is an explanation for why the SDD works the way it does, and paste that into the description of the component.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 June 2001).]

Re: Self-Destruct is Irrational Component
 

Thanks geo and sj. That's a start. Maybe destroyed engines are only MOSTLY dead. And I like the idea about every ship having basic deflector tech, which also must be lowered to board. Maybe destruction of other ships comes about due to electronic control system overload by a high energy electromagnetic pulse (HEEMP) from the SDD. The military used to worry about HEEMPs from atmospheric nukes back in the cold war days. What a relief that we don't have to worry about nukes anymore, since it was only the Soviets who'd ever do anything like that. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...s/rolleyes.gif