Revisiting Stealth & Detection

[Skaro]

The most important question in this entire matter hasn't been asked.

What do people want?

Should a fleet always be detected when it moves towards another player?
Or should it be possible to travel deep within the enemy's territory without being detected?

[eleazar]

Ships have no position (except "in system") until a battle is joined, and players place and arrange their ships. You can argue that it should be different, but don't assume mechanics contrary to the design document with out reason and explanation.

...
If you choose to engage an enemy then your ships should Start at a range where your ships can detect (and almost fire upon) the enemy ships. (if the enemy ships have a greater firing range, then they get the option of starting the battle farther away (so you are still almost in their firing range)))

That's a radically difference concept of combat than what's in the v.4 design pad with or without stealth changes. If at all possible propose that in a different thread, and keep this one focused on stealth and detection.

The most important question in this entire matter hasn't been asked.

What do people want?

Should a fleet always be detected when it moves towards another player?
Or should it be possible to travel deep within the enemy's territory without being detected?

Why is that the most important question? Obviously people wanted to be able to travel deep into enemy territory without being detected, because the current system was designed to allow it. But just because something is "wanted", it doesn't mean all the logical implications are known and desired. That's all in my first post. The stealth and detection system has all these negative implications that weren't originally noticed or considered, therefore should be reconsidered.

[em3]

I believe it boils down to two sides of a coin:
One is being able to stealthily infiltrate enemy territory with your fleet for a surprise attack. The other is to be able to tell for sure if something infiltrated your territory - regardless of technology difference and scout sweeps.

The first one gets points for the rule of cool. The second one makes for a simpler and, possibly, more enjoyable gameplay.

I believe that being able to detect presence, but not quantity, quality, details (or even alignment) of fleets in your controlled space is a good middle ground between these two extremes. Detection of a (potentially hostile) movement in your own territory would give you chances to try and scan the threat with a better scanner or gather a defensive force nearby.

[Krikkitone]

I believe it boils down to two sides of a coin:
One is being able to stealthily infiltrate enemy territory with your fleet for a surprise attack. The other is to be able to tell for sure if something infiltrated your territory - regardless of technology difference and scout sweeps.

The first one gets points for the rule of cool. The second one makes for a simpler and, possibly, more enjoyable gameplay.

I believe that being able to detect presence, but not quantity, quality, details (or even alignment) of fleets in your controlled space is a good middle ground between these two extremes. Detection of a (potentially hostile) movement in your own territory would give you chances to try and scan the threat with a better scanner or gather a defensive force nearby.

I think that if you have the best Detector tech associated with colonies (or 'listening' outposts)..perhaps as a meter that slowly adjusts.. and occasional expensive ships (since they have the best Detector tech) that you only need one of per system, then it is perfectly fine to have "presence not detected" at distance 0 on the galaxy map.

There would be almost no need for "when did I last scan this system at X level" because the most reasonable thing to do would be to post those "best scanners" in systems permanently... (colony ships/listening outposts/best scanning ship)

If you only need one ship per Uncolonized system you want to watch, then the management and cost is very minimal, unless you want a massive early warning system. (and in that case you should be using Outposts)

So having the "Detection in this system" read out would be fairly easy. The "max detection I had and when I had it" readouts would be somewhat useful but not needed except on a very rare basis. (the "max detection" might be useful for tracking your scouting for specials... but for checking for enemy fleets... there the "current detection" is all that really matters, since enemy fleets may readily move.)


The "scanning ships" (and "when I last had max detection" fact) I would only see as useful
1. Scouting (finding hidden specials... only needs to be done in uncolonized systems)
2. "Global Diplomacy changes" I feel safe on my border with Empire A so I can shift the ships to the border with Empire B
3. "Listening Outposts" where I can't build Outposts (no visisble planets, etc.)



The idea of starting ships off ready to do combat is not really neccessary if Visibility on the galaxy map=visibility on the tactical map. (so that there is no battle where you "have to auto-resolve" because it is minutes of pointless searching)

[Skaro]

The most important question in this entire matter hasn't been asked.

What do people want?

Should a fleet always be detected when it moves towards another player?
Or should it be possible to travel deep within the enemy's territory without being detected?

Why is that the most important question? Obviously people wanted to be able to travel deep into enemy territory without being detected, because the current system was designed to allow it. But just because something is "wanted", it doesn't mean all the logical implications are known and desired. That's all in my first post. The stealth and detection system has all these negative implications that weren't originally noticed or considered, therefore should be reconsidered.

Hence why you must ask what people want. Opening up a dialogue about your idea to see how it can be adapted to be actually functional is always the first step you must take.

Not everyone is gonna agree with what you want, your idea for instance is pretty much gonna kill surprise attacks.

A programmer is gonna spend his time on implementing your idea. All that work is gonna be for nothing if there's too many people complaining about this change and everything gets thrown out in the end. This could have easily been avoided by hearing everybody out before deciding to go ahead. I'm speaking from experience here, I've spent way too many late nights at my job correcting the mistakes of people who didn't properly ask what was desired/needed.


At any rate, there must be a better way to balance out detection vs stealth.

My personal idea would be to build a detection network in your empire.

Detecting movement in starlanes
The detection network would require atleast two systems with both atleast one planet colonized and directly connected via a starlane. Sensor arrays of sorts would scan the starlane. Ships inside the starlane could be detected if the level of their stealth tech is equal or lower then the techlevel of the sensor array.

This effectively creates a zone of certainty if you keep this tech at a high level. It would still allow for stealth surprise attacks on border worlds, traveling deeper into a territory would require more advanced stealth tech. Investing in such a tech would mean that the invader is spending more on this than the defender.

A borderworld wouldn't be completely blind though. I suggest that they could scan into starlanes that aren't connected to a friendly system. Though this scanning would be pretty hit-or-miss since you can't have a 100% accurate reading without connecting to a second detector on the other side of the starlane. This would by all means create a permanent zone of uncertainty.

People can still launch a attack against you, but there's a chance that you'll see it coming.

The entire idea revolves around the concept that ships create a energy disruption in the starlane while they are traveling. Tiny spyships barely leave any trace when entering a system, so they'd get by most of the time. But it's really the job of whatever counterintelligence you have to weed those guys out.

Staying hidden
Not everybody likes to be detected, you don't want that fleet of yours to be spotted before it can attack your neighbors.
Here I'd like to see the ability to use asteroid belts as a hiding place. The metals and whatnot in the asteroids could provide shielding against most scans. Techs like let's say ECM generators would further help keep these ships hidden.

Hiding in a asteroid belt would also be a viable tactic to ambush a ship or a fleet that's gonna pass through a system that you have moved your ships to.

More and bigger ships mean a bigger disruption in the starlanes. Sending in a few ships will get you where you want to be, though it would be hard to assemble a striking force within a enemy system before being detected. Spies/saboteurs could come in handy here, you could potentially have one of them disable a sensor array on one side of the starlane. The defender would receive inaccurate data on what's coming their way.

A spy could also be detected, you could extract information from the spy about the location of a invading fleet or fleet(s) within your empire. Assuming he doesn't commit suicide.


Just some ideas/critiques.

[em3]

I like the starlane activity detection idea in general.

Here I'd like to see the ability to use asteroid belts as a hiding place. The metals and whatnot in the asteroids could provide shielding against most scans. Techs like let's say ECM generators would further help keep these ships hidden.

Hiding in a asteroid belt would also be a viable tactic to ambush a ship or a fleet that's gonna pass through a system that you have moved your ships to.

I think this - if implemented - should only work as a kind of "burrowing" your fleet in the asteroid belt. You are detectable normally on the turn that you entered the system. That means, that you can be detected between leaving FTL and reaching the belt (which does not have to be near the starlane). Otherwise - a ship subsystem that boosts the ship's galaxy-level stealth in systems with asteroid belts, and tactical stealth if the ships are deployed within the belt during combat - sounds really fun and I think could be implemented regardless of the way the stealth/detection discussion ends.

Another idea to the pool:
An empire automatically deploys detector probes to neutral and own systems that lie within its supply range.

[eleazar]

I believe that being able to detect presence, but not quantity, quality, details (or even alignment) of fleets in your controlled space is a good middle ground between these two extremes.

I assume you mean as a minimum detection level of anything within range on the galaxy map? If so that's the heart of "B) Progressive Detection"
Note that allies will probably share vision of their fleets and planets, so unknown fleets will probably be either neutral or hostile, since friendlies will be known..

Not everyone is gonna agree with what you want...

Everyone never agrees on anything, especially not what a great game would be-- i certainly don't expect it, and start to get uneasy whenever it starts to seem like everyone might agree with me.

...your idea for instance is pretty much gonna kill surprise attacks.

Not at all. It kills the "Surprise! a fleet has been hiding in your homesystem, waiting to strike." type. It's not a primary goal, but arguably that kind of surprise needs to be killed.
Less outrageous surprises are still perfectly viable, "Surprise! a large hostile fleet has suddenly been detected 1 turn away from one of your colonies."

A programmer is gonna spend his time on implementing your idea.

I'm well aware of that. I'm not a coder, but i've worked with them enough to believe that my proposed changes are rather modest. And a large part of my motivation, is to head of the need for the much more programmer's time implemented the stuff BigJoe describes being needed to make the current system really work.

All that work is gonna be for nothing if there's too many people complaining about this change and everything gets thrown out in the end. This could have easily been avoided by hearing everybody out before deciding to go ahead.

I'm not worried about that. What i've proposed is closer to how MoO and many/most 4X games work. Additionally since enemy AI's do nothing, no one has really gotten used to the current system.

Detecting movement in starlanes
The detection network would require atleast two systems with both atleast one planet colonized and directly connected via a starlane. Sensor arrays of sorts would scan the starlane. Ships inside the starlane could be detected if the level of their stealth tech is equal or lower then the techlevel of the sensor array.

This effectively creates a zone of certainty if you keep this tech at a high level. It would still allow for stealth surprise attacks on border worlds, traveling deeper into a territory would require more advanced stealth tech. Investing in such a tech would mean that the invader is spending more on this than the defender.

A borderworld wouldn't be completely blind though. I suggest that they could scan into starlanes that aren't connected to a friendly system. Though this scanning would be pretty hit-or-miss since you can't have a 100% accurate reading without connecting to a second detector on the other side of the starlane. This would by all means create a permanent zone of uncertainty.

People can still launch a attack against you, but there's a chance that you'll see it coming.

The main difference is it sounds like you are proposing that detection be somehow based on detection probabilities instead of deterministic as the current system (and other proposals including mine) are. You get points for saying something new, but you don't explain why that is a good idea. I wonder if you are really familiar with how the current system works? I see that your system provides better detection on the inside of your empire than the edge, but i think practically the insides would be usually no better than with the current system, while the boarders would be worse. An explanation of what problems you think this solves and why you think this is better would be helpful.

Your tern "zone of certainty" is misleading, since you can never be certain that someone doesn't have better stealth technology than your detection. Also since i've perviously used that term in an absolute sense, (in my "zone of certainty" you know absolutely if any fleets are there) it is confusing.

...(finding hidden specials..

Specials are never hidden, if you see the planet, you see the special.

Another idea to the pool:
An empire automatically deploys detector probes to neutral and own systems that lie within its supply range.

One of our design principles is to never "solve" a boring or tedious game mechanic by handing it over to an AI. If supply lines were to have detection ability, we would simply make a rule that they do, not have an AI send little ships all along them.

Arguing that an optional AI can be turned on to handle a micromanagement-heavy feature does not justify it.
* If a system is so boring that we expect most players to ignore and let an AI deal with it, it is not worth adding to the game.
* If a system is so strategically shallow that an simple AI can handle it without need of player interference, it is probably not worth adding to the game.

[Bigjoe5]

So what if they do? Under the current system you'll never know if the enemy snuck through your pickets at some turn when their stealth was slightly higher than your detection. So continual resweeping would be called for whenever detection tech is upgraded.

Re-sweeping only of systems in which you don't have a planet. How many systems like that are you going to have within your borders? Typically a number equal to the number of planetless systems (and if that's too many, the question of whether or not outposts can exist in such systems is still open).

I'm not interested in comparing the number of meters and readouts that one part of the game has to another part to make sure each has a "fair share". The important comparison is between my proposal which requires no additional numbers and graphs, and the current system that does. There's a lot of game let to add, and we would be wise not to add to the sidebar for little cause.

Why does your system require no numbers or graphs? Isn't it still important to know when you last had visibility of a particular system that's not currently in your detection range?

If that gradient was implemented on the current system it still has an outside edge which only tells you "here's where i can detect stars", and a gradual denser color that doesn't absolutely correspond to detector strength, or your ability to detect arbitrarily stealthed ships.

Obviously there would be a stealth threshold slider for that implementation as well. In general, ships will tend to have some discrete stealth values, based on the stealth technology that they use. So if you think your opponent is using Stealth 3, you set your slider to the stealth level that ships designed with Stealth 3 can be expected to have, and you are given a range of systems in which such ships are definitely not present. It's not "guess-based" at all.

The visibility of different empire colors varies greatly as they fall off to full transparency and as they mix with the background.

That's OK; You're not comparing the intensities of two different empire colours - your comparing two different intensities of the same empire colour. It's not intended to provide precise information anyway - just general vague information so that you know where to go to look for more precise information.

No not "as normal". No such non-combat missions like "hide" exist outside your plans to make the current stealth system work. I think you followed the line of reasoning: "how can we make this stealth system work?" rather well, but ultimately that was the wrong line to follow because it led to a design that is excessively fiddly and involved.

I haven't seen any indication that the design in question is excessively fiddly and involved.

With what I've proposed there's no need for that. Outside of battle you would give ships absolutely no instructions/ missions other than starlane travel, and those rare, limited actions like "colonize" and "invade".

Your proposed system for stealth and detection doesn't remove the need to give ships general tactical orders outside of combat. Regardless of what stealth/detection system is used, there needs to be a robust system for auto-resolution of combats. This means that in some sort of pre-combat phase, you give your ships some kind of tactical goals on the map, for combats which you aren't going to manually control. This may include things like "hide in the asteroid belt and avoid combat". Simply extending this design to include auto-resolution of system action in which there are no known enemy ships present is not obviously fiddly and involved, and is effectively very similar to just giving your ships special orders such as "Colonize" and "Invade".

No, my main motivation is just to have some place at all where you definitely know what's there. The current system does not provide this.

True, but the current system does provide some places where you definitely know what's not there, which is often equivalent. For example, suppose you have Neutron Scanner technology, so all your colonies have detection of 70. You now know that your systems do not contain any ships with stealth equal to or below 70. Which in general, will be all ships belonging to most empires. What you end up with in this case is uncertainty only when extremely stealthy empires are concerned - empires which are less likely to be otherwise particularly powerful. If stealth typically lags behind detection, then a situation in which you're unaware of enemy ships in an owned system will be extremely rare - in other words, very difficult for the stealthy empire to pull off; difficult in proportion to the strategic advantage gained by getting into that position, which is perfectly fair.

I prefer "A", but the complications that this avoids are the need for system stealth numbers/graphs, non-combat "missions" and so on.

As mentioned before, it doesn't avoid the need for system stealth numbers/graphs, and non-combat "missions" are in general no more complicated for the player than special "Colonize" orders given on the galaxy map.

I noticed you are arguing against me at different points by making mutually exclusive assumptions about the content. Granted shaping the content either way is possible, but not both at once. Towards the top. "You'll park scouts in all your empty systems." & "Planet detection will normally be the same as ship detection", while at the bottom you describe rare, expensive super-detector ships.

I very deliberately said that the player will "want to" put scouts in all empty systems. Realistically, the player will have to make some tradeoff between covering territory with scouts, and doing other stuff. "Planet detection will normally be the same as ship detection" has nothing to do with either of those, but greatly decreases the number of locations the player needs to worry about scanning. In general, I would want a player's territory to be kept watch over by outposts and colonies, so that there are no need for scouts within in a player's empire (for the purposes of galaxy map detection).

I'm not really sure what you're and Krikk's extended discussion of scouts has to do with anything.

It has to do with the fact that for any system used, there is a particular set of content that we could include that would make it tedious and boring for the player. You seem to be making assumption about content that would lead to the game being tedious and boring with the current stealth and detection system. Pointing out that it doesn't need to be that way is important.

With expensive super-scouts there's micro because you need to keep sweeping your territory with them, because they can't be everywhere at once.

As mentioned, I think your territory should generally be watched over by your planets. Colonies and outposts having the same detection as optimal scouts greatly reduces the micro that is needed to keep an eye on things, no matter what.

Ships have no position (except "in system") until a battle is joined, and players place and arrange their ships. You can argue that it should be different, but don't assume mechanics contrary to the design document with out reason and explanation.

Since what's described in that document doesn't work with the current stealth/detection system we're discussing, I'm generally assuming this, for reasons given on that page.

As above, an enemy fleet can't have a specific location "in asteroid belt" until battle has been joined. Also this is a turn based game, not an RTS. I don't see the galaxy map changing due to something that happened in a battle before the battle is resolved.

That's missing the point. The change in galaxy map detection just means that the player gains new knowledge about something that exists on the tactical map, which is a method of letting players join a battle at the point at which they are potentially able to detect some enemy ships (because they now know that those ships exist in that system). It doesn't mean that the player needs to react with some action on the galaxy map before the start of the next galaxy map turn.

It kills the "Surprise! a fleet has been hiding in your homesystem, waiting to strike." type. It's not a primary goal, but arguably that kind of surprise needs to be killed.
Less outrageous surprises are still perfectly viable, "Surprise! a large hostile fleet has suddenly been detected 1 turn away from one of your colonies."

Even with the current system, the outrageous-ness of the the "Surprise!" is proportional to the amount of effort the stealthy empire put into preparing the surprise. For example, if an empire needs to have more advanced stealth technology than the defender's detection technology, and assign a leader with a stealth bonus to his fleet to get it into the defender's system undetected, then that kind of effort warrants a huge "Surprise!" at the expense of the stealthy empire's ability to do other stuff (he has only one such leader, he needed to focus research on those techs, etc.). In general, stealthiness will come at a cost to brute force as a strategic tradeoff. Plus, there are things the defending empire can do to counteract that kind of "Surprise!", such as building Interstellar Lighthouses in his empire, researching more advanced detection technology, putting spies in the stealthy empire's fleet, or having a leader who boosts detection stationed in that system. Or hiring another empire to do any of the above.

...a large part of my motivation, is to head of the need for the much more programmer's time implemented the stuff BigJoe describes being needed to make the current system really work.

I'm currently a Software Engineering student, so I'm perfectly willing to gain the necessary skills and do some of the stuff I've described myself.

[em3]

Another idea to the pool:
An empire automatically deploys detector probes to neutral and own systems that lie within its supply range.

One of our design principles is to never "solve" a boring or tedious game mechanic by handing it over to an AI. If supply lines were to have detection ability, we would simply make a rule that they do, not have an AI send little ships all along them.

Actually - I meant it more as an explanation to give the supply lines detection ability. The satellites themselves would not be displayed as a game element.

I believe that being able to detect presence, but not quantity, quality, details (or even alignment) of fleets in your controlled space is a good middle ground between these two extremes.

I assume you mean as a minimum detection level of anything within range on the galaxy map? If so that's the heart of "B) Progressive Detection"
Note that allies will probably share vision of their fleets and planets, so unknown fleets will probably be either neutral or hostile, since friendlies will be known..

I believe what I have in mind is a kind of hybrid between models A and B:

• There is a fixed number of detection levels: undetected, presence, quantity, details.
• A detector in system always gives the player at least presence-level detectability in the system.
• Detectors are ships, colonies, outposts [and systems connected to player's supply lines].
• Colonies and outposts have detection meters, which rise over time to the maximum level allowed by current technology. The gradual rise represents deployment of scanning infrastructure and satellites.
• There is a formula that, for each object within detector's range, compares object's stealth with detector's detection strength, taking distance into account. The result of this formula determines (using multiple threshold), which detection level applies.

This means, more or less, variant A with "safe threshold" set to 0 (inclusive) with some flavors of B.

[Krikkitone]

Well a few things I would want in a system.

1. No "Tactical Combat" involving moving around the system searching for a fleet that you know is somewhere in the system, but not know the location of in the system (generally I would want to minimize use of the "Tactical map".. ie anything that could reasonably be automated... such as moving around/searching/colonizing.. should not involve the tactical map)

2. Player 1's ability to have a Stealthy fleet in the system that Player 2 does Not know the location of.*

3. a Stealthy fleet in system should not be an "instakill button"

The two possible solutions are
A. If you know a fleet is in the system you also know Where it is in the system (regardless of the tactical position of the your fleets)
OR
B. "Tactical Combat" always starts with at least one of the Fleets that Wants to engage in the tactical position where it can see the other fleet

A is somewhat simpler... if you can see it on the galaxy map you can send your ships at it and attempt to shoot at it, and it doesn't limit pre-placement of fleets in tactical combat. (allowing for a "no tactical location" for ships outside of tactical combat)

*A does raise a potential problem of the Stealthed Fleet... it won't become 'unstealthed' as it moves around the system. So it could kill all the enemy without the enemy knowing it... unless something else (besides shorter distance to enemy ships) made it 'unstealthed'.
For that I would say weapons fire should reduce a ship's Stealth significantly. Since weapon fire would only occur once 'combat' had begun that would not be much of an issue. (on the galaxy map, since you would be in the tactical map at that point)

eleazar's general proposal basically changes Galaxy map Detection from Detection-Stealth>Range to Detection*(1-Stealth/100)>Range, effectively eliminating the stealth fleet from the galaxy map. That is a loss, but if it happens, the Stealth fleet should Also be removed from the tactical map (for detection/location although maybe not for targeting)


The problem of stealth is mostly around the tactical map... a player should not get summoned to combat and sit around waiting for the other player's stealth fleet to show up, especially if they did not know that stealth fleet was there to begin with. (so I'll start another thread on how to starting/ending combat.)

However, I think A is better than a more complex tactical system so my proposal

1. Visibility:Location (Including ability to locate something on the tactical map) should be strictly based on galaxy map Ranges and not have any influence from tactical map distances... whether it is Detection-Stealth or Detection*(1-Stealth/100) or any other f(Detection,Stealth) that the galaxy map Range must be less than.

2. If it is possible for a ship to be undetected at galaxy map Range of 0, then firing weapons should make the ship Visible (including tactical map location) to any player In the system until ... the previously stealthed ship leaves the system or all of that player's asets in the system are gone.

[eleazar]

I'm not interested in comparing the number of meters and readouts that one part of the game has to another part to make sure each has a "fair share". The important comparison is between my proposal which requires no additional numbers and graphs, and the current system that does. There's a lot of game let to add, and we would be wise not to add to the sidebar for little cause.

Why does your system require no numbers or graphs? Isn't it still important to know when you last had visibility of a particular system that's not currently in your detection range?

"Turns since last scanned" wouldn't be useless with either of the new systems i've proposed, but i don't think it is necessary, and that's only one number. "Strength of last scan" and a graph could be skipped without any regret. They are much more necessary with the current system.

...No such non-combat missions like "hide" exist outside your plans to make the current stealth system work. I think you followed the line of reasoning: "how can we make this stealth system work?" rather well, but ultimately that was the wrong line to follow because it led to a design that is excessively fiddly and involved.

I haven't seen any indication that the design in question is excessively fiddly and involved.

Obviously your threshold for "excessively" is different than mine. You gotta admit though it is more fiddly and involved.

With what I've proposed there's no need for that. Outside of battle you would give ships absolutely no instructions/ missions other than starlane travel, and those rare, limited actions like "colonize" and "invade".

Your proposed system for stealth and detection doesn't remove the need to give ships general tactical orders outside of combat. Regardless of what stealth/detection system is used, there needs to be a robust system for auto-resolution of combats. This means that in some sort of pre-combat phase, you give your ships some kind of tactical goals on the map, for combats which you aren't going to manually control. This may include things like "hide in the asteroid belt and avoid combat". Simply extending this design to include auto-resolution of system action in which there are no known enemy ships present is not obviously fiddly and involved, and is effectively very similar to just giving your ships special orders such as "Colonize" and "Invade".

While i agree it would be nice if we had a robust auto-resolution combat system. But a system where you could "hide in the asteroid belt and avoid combat" is very ambitious, robust, and complex. Can you provide an example of another 4x with such a system? I do not assume that we can produce such a system of that level of detail-- especially if it is also easy to use and understand.

And on the other hand if we do produce some sort of auto-resolve controls and are easy to use and understand, that is likely because we didn't 'simply' extend it to do a lot of unnecessary stuff. There is no particular reason that "colonize", or "build outpost" needs to be possible when there are combatants in the system.

And as i explain in some detail here, it is a good thing for the ability to grasp what's going on from the galaxy map to avoid adding commands such as "hide" at all.

Colonies and outposts having the same detection as optimal scouts greatly reduces the micro that is needed to keep an eye on things, no matter what.

I tend to agree.

Ships have no position (except "in system") until a battle is joined, and players place and arrange their ships. You can argue that it should be different, but don't assume mechanics contrary to the design document with out reason and explanation.

Since what's described in that document doesn't work with the current stealth/detection system we're discussing, I'm generally assuming this, for reasons given on that page.

If you are going to assume something, wouldn't it be better to assume that the first implementation would be adjusted to meet the stated gameplay goals rather than the other way around?

...a large part of my motivation, is to head of the need for the much more programmer's time implemented the stuff BigJoe describes being needed to make the current system really work.

I'm currently a Software Engineering student, so I'm perfectly willing to gain the necessary skills and do some of the stuff I've described myself.

[/quote]I wish you well with that course of study, and not sarcastically. We need more coders. But even if you do come along and start implementing hefty FO features, i'll still be arguing for a game that's more like MoO1 than MoO3, and trying to steer towards elegant simplicity-- at least until we actually get to 1.0.

[*]Colonies and outposts have detection meters, which rise over time to the maximum level allowed by current technology. The gradual rise represents deployment of scanning infrastructure and satellites.

I don't think that really adds anything to detection except complexity. What benefit is there in representing gradual deployment?

Otherwise i have no strong objections to what you say, though i would rather do it more simply.

eleazar's general proposal basically changes Galaxy map Detection from Detection-Stealth>Range to Detection*(1-Stealth/100)>Range, effectively eliminating the stealth fleet from the galaxy map. That is a loss, but if it happens, the Stealth fleet should Also be removed from the tactical map (for detection/location although maybe not for targeting)

It does not kill stealth fleets-- especially plan "A". It nerfs it. With either plan stealth could still be valuable and interesting on the galaxy map and in battle. Just not as powerful as it might be otherwise.

[Krikkitone]

eleazar's general proposal basically changes Galaxy map Detection from Detection-Stealth>Range to Detection*(1-Stealth/100)>Range, effectively eliminating the stealth fleet from the galaxy map. That is a loss, but if it happens, the Stealth fleet should Also be removed from the tactical map (for detection/location although maybe not for targeting)

It does not kill stealth fleets-- especially plan "A". It's nerf it. With either plan stealth could still be valuable and interesting on the galaxy map and in battle. Just not as powerful as it might be otherwise.

No... all your plans basically eliminate truly stealth fleets... stealth just gives less time to prepare for border systems.

The current model
Stealth+Range=Detection works fine.

The only think I would change is
1. make Range Only galactic (ie if it is visible on the galaxy map it is visible Everywhere on the tactical map, if it is Invisible on the galaxy map it is invisible Everywhere on the tactical map)

2. make ship Stealth depend on whether it has fired weapons this turn. (ie as soon as it fires weapons stealth is capped at 1 for the remainder of the turn/or for X combat time or something like that... or just if it engages in combat it becomes visible... so a stealthed fleet can sneek past border systems)



However, whatever model is used I think #1 is Very important.

A fleet's position on the tactical map should have no bearing on whether it is detected or not. (the decision to engage or not should have a bearing on that though)

Basically every system where Your fleet detects an enemy fleet (either sitting there or passing through) you should have the Option to engage... now the enemy fleet should also have that option (if they detect you) and if either party wants to engage, then there is a tactical engagement. (all the rest is on the galaxy map)

[Bigjoe5]

-Reworked visibility to have a separate range (determined by detection meter on each detector object), and strength (single value for a whole empire's objects, determined by the empire detection meter). Distance, less than the detection range, should now not affect the level of stealth a detector can detect.
-Added an effect to set empire detection meters to 12, which seems like a reasonable default value given current stealth numbers.

It's not entirely clear what you mean by this. Do detectors have a constant detection strength of "Strength" to within a distance of "Range", which drops off gradually as distance goes outside of "Range"? Then is setting "Range" to 0 equivalent to the previous system?

[Geoff the Medio]

Do detectors have a constant detection strength of "Strength" to within a distance of "Range"

Yes. More so, every object owned by an empire has the same strength, but objects can have different ranges; range is determined by objects' detection meters, but strength is an empire meter.

which drops off gradually as distance goes outside of "Range"?

No. There is no detection strength dependence on distance between 0 and an object's detection range. However, outside the range, there is no detection. The only distance-dependence is that at and past the distance equal to an object's detection range, it stops contributing to detection for its empire.

Then is setting "Range" to 0 equivalent to the previous system?

No.

[eleazar]

-Reworked visibility to have a separate range (determined by detection meter on each detector object), and strength (single value for a whole empire's objects, determined by the empire detection meter). Distance, less than the detection range, should now not affect the level of stealth a detector can detect.
-Added an effect to set empire detection meters to 12, which seems like a reasonable default value given current stealth numbers.

Hmmm, haven't thought through all the ramifications, but that addresses at least some of my concerns with the current system.