Planet/ship capture bonus. - Page 2

nerfman · #11 May 5th, 2001, 06:12 AM

Jimbo, that is a good idea. You can bet our guys are considering what needs upgraded now that the Chinese got 'em one EP-3. Well, at least we got our people back.

Coal · #12 May 5th, 2001, 03:40 PM

Ok, can I just ask that this post go back to the original purpose. I don't want to decrease anyones desire for history, but I just want to put this back on track. I really want too get peoples opinions on my idea. Lets just turn this into a poll post. Anyone have an idea to add, please do so.

Hey, I got promoted! It took just one month.
------------------
Rules? What Rules?

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 05 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 05 May 2001).]

Taqwus · #13 May 5th, 2001, 04:41 PM

To a limited degree... An attack fleet deep in enemy territory is largely on its own; the fact that communications and reinforcements would both take massive amounts of time due to distance implies a greater degree of autonomy, and I'm not convinced that one fleet would necessarily be aware of the disposition of other fleets that aren't in the same general area. On the other hand, they will likely have information about that particular region.

In addition, any society that can travel between star systems probably has better computing technology, which would allow for such things as the use of OTPs specific to a link in a hierarchy, or alternately strong public-key cryptography or other methods by which compromising one link might not affect others... that is, the "universal code book" vulnerability wouldn't necessarily exist.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

DirectorTsaarx · #14 May 7th, 2001, 03:26 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Taqwus:
<snip>
In addition, any society that can travel between star systems probably has better computing technology, which would allow for such things as the use of OTPs specific to a link in a hierarchy, or alternately strong public-key cryptography or other methods by which compromising one link might not affect others... that is, the "universal code book" vulnerability wouldn't necessarily exist.

They've probably also mastered the use of "quantum cryptography" (see http://www.qubit.org/intros/crypt.html). Quantum crypto may make it more difficult to decrypt enemy communications, even with a captured ship on hand.

A side note on the captured E-3: SE4 needs dedicated EW ships. Yeah, we can model spy planes & spy satellites with small ships/satellites loaded with sensors, but we should be able to create a ship that gives sensor bonuses to the fleet (both offensive and defensive). Unfortunately, the AI would need to figure out how to use them

.

[This message has been edited by DirectorTsaarx (edited 07 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DirectorTsaarx (edited 07 May 2001).]

nerfman · #15 May 8th, 2001, 12:31 AM

For someone who's signarure includes:

"Rules? What Rules?"

Someone seems to be making a lot of rules

Coal · #16 May 8th, 2001, 01:12 AM

There, I changed it nerfman. Happy?

------------------
Opinions? I don't need no stinking opinions!

Suicide Junkie · #17 May 8th, 2001, 01:16 AM

quote:
Its a suggestion box, not a we'll do what you say box

nerfman · #18 May 8th, 2001, 03:15 AM

Never happy, but somewhat amused.

dogscoff · #19 May 8th, 2001, 11:33 AM

I think this is one of those issues where gameplay takes precedence over realism - This is a complex idea which touches on quite a few of SEIV's more abstract simulations - for example, wouldn't it be more realistic if you simply lost contact with damaged / destroyed/ captured ships rather than know for sure what happened to them (and who did it)? Changing the implementation to better model that though would be a LOT of work for MM and wouldn't necessarily make for a better game.

My vote would be for a small intel boost and/ or "pre- paid" intel project as a reward for capturing enemy planets and ships.

As for the Enigma thing- I'm no historian, I just know that that film got it wrong, and I was keen to correct its ignorance. I can understand your frustration with your thread drifting off topic, Maverick. However I don't think it's such a bad thing, especially if it stays within the wider topic of military history (ie examples in military strategy.) Occasionally talking about something different gives us a better idea of what ppl are really like.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so Brain, but how are we gonna teach a goat to dance with flippers on? "