|
Post by anthropoid on Jan 9, 2020 15:47:47 GMT -6
dorn Thanks! So raiders need to be in the zone where you want them to raid, but TP can all be in the home zone. That to me is a pretty big "deficiency" in the games "realism" dynamics. I can understand that there is a need to abstract things and going so far as setting circuits between zones to represent where a ship on "TP" is more likely to interdict raiders or take part in convoy defense is probably far too much to expect. However, it seems like it wouldn't be so hard to include some code that compared the degree of adjacency of each zone for a zone with trade warfare and then ONLY pulled TP participants from zones within a certain threshold of range (be it 1 or 2 or 3 steps removed). Since the computers ability to allocate its TPs to distant zones is much more difficult to code, just let the "A.I." cheat and get the current chances for TP to show up anywhere irrespective of range, but force players to distribute their TP forces either before the war (for short range vessels) or during to properly respond to convoy raiders Just an idea.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 9, 2020 17:39:38 GMT -6
I think that abstraction in this area is reasonable.
Sometimes you hunt enemy raiders from area to area which is quite a micromanagement.
Ships in TP status are considered that they defend convoys no matter where there are so you do not need micro. It works realistically except you have starting and ending area. In reality it could differ and it would depend where a ship at that time is. This simplification is quite good solution not to have micro.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 9, 2020 17:57:48 GMT -6
I think that abstraction in this area is reasonable. Sometimes you hunt enemy raiders from area to area which is quite a micromanagement. Ships in TP status are considered that they defend convoys no matter where there are so you do not need micro. It works realistically except you have starting and ending area. In reality it could differ and it would depend where a ship at that time is. This simplification is quite good solution not to have micro. I have never seen a surface raider attack be stopped by a ship that wasn't in the same sea zone whether or not that ship is on Trade Protection. It's only the ASW aspect of Trade Protection that doesn't care about where the ships actually are.
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jan 11, 2020 10:48:45 GMT -6
I think that abstraction in this area is reasonable. Sometimes you hunt enemy raiders from area to area which is quite a micromanagement. Ships in TP status are considered that they defend convoys no matter where there are so you do not need micro. It works realistically except you have starting and ending area. In reality it could differ and it would depend where a ship at that time is. This simplification is quite good solution not to have micro. I have never seen a surface raider attack be stopped by a ship that wasn't in the same sea zone whether or not that ship is on Trade Protection. It's only the ASW aspect of Trade Protection that doesn't care about where the ships actually are. This has been my experience, ships on TP need to be deployed to the right area to get those "raider attack on shipping thwarted" type messages. However interceptions seem a lot more random.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 11, 2020 15:56:09 GMT -6
If I remember well they can be on convoy defence mission even if that battle is another area.
|
|