Target Nearest Threat Crash

[Dirt12]

I'd like to report a consistant crash that I've noted for sometime now only I've just gotten around to reporting it. It's highly reproduceable. I've found that the only way to fend off in-coming torps is to set my turrents to "auto"-target and then select Target Nearest Threat" (Shift-Y) as the torps are rolling in on me. If I repeatedly hit Shift-Y, I can generate a CTD everytime. I've uploaded the error log.

cheers

[TheDeadlyShoe]

huh, I thought that one was fixed. Regardless, DEF-mode PDBs should be more than adequate for destroying incoming torps unless the PDBs are badly damaged.

[Dirt12]

I miss-spoke. What I should have said is that the problem is with in-coming ASM's dispatched from fighters. Not torps. The DEF-mode PDB's have no problem hitting torps but they won't target ASM's unless you target them yourself by switching to auto.

[Dragonlead]

This is not an error. PDs aren't programmed to engage incoming ASMs on their own. Torps, yes, but not fighter-launched ASMs.

V/R

[Dirt12]

Perhaps not. But the CTD associated with the mannual targeting sure is. It's too bad really that the PD's wont engage ASM's on their own. IMHO I feel the game play is a little unbalanced in favor of fighters.

cheers

[Dragonlead]

You are correct, the CTD is definitely an issue.

I don't know if I agree about the bias towards fighters though, but that's a topic for another sub-forum.

V/R

[John DiCamillo]

Yeah, thanks for the bug report; I didn't know about that crash. It's fixed in 4.5.0.

Regarding the fighters / threats targeting thing - the point defense target selection algorithm is supposed to target threats first. It will only choose a fighter over an inbound missile if the fighter is five times closer than the threat. In other words, a PDB will target a fighter at 20 km instead of a torpedo at 100 km. But as soon as the torpedo gets closer than 100 km, the PDB will switch over to target the torpedo.

Anyway, that's what the code says. I haven't created a test mission to verify this specific piece of behavior. I've never noticed a problem using the DEF mode in real combat.

[Dirt12]

Yes, actually I've found that the PDB's do a great job with torps. It's the ASM fired from the fighters they have trouble with on DEF mode.

Thanks for the bug squash Milo and if I haven't said it enough, this is truly a great game.

[Pheonix Starflare]

Ah, the problem you're having is PDBs not shooting fighter ASMs. Well, theres is a simple explanation: they can't. That's the way milo intentionally coded the game.
For better or for worse, it allows fighters to strike capships more easily. This works in your favor when you're a fighter pilot, but obviously works against you when you're in a capship.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Theoretically I suppose it would be better to have PDBs capable of shooting down ASMs. Then fighters could use their maneuverability to get into capital ship blind spots. That would be a hefty AI job though.

[John DiCamillo]

The intention was that starships would need to take out inbound fighters before they could launch a devastating strike. The idea was to balance the contribution of fighters, strike craft, fleet defense frigates, and capital starships. Each type of ship has its own contribution to make, and they all have to work together to succeed.

This was actually the single hardest part about designing Starshatter. There weren't many other games to look at for inspiration when it came to mixed-class combat models, especially for military fleet forces. It's hard for me to say whether I got it "right" or not, or even if there is a best way to do this.

[DamoclesX]

^ Combined arms is the best, it makes everything more integrated, and can generate a fleet that is unstoppable since each ship is designed for one purpose, and will be more powerfull then a counterpart that has to take into account everything.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Oh yes, I get that. I was just ruminating based on if PDBs could shoot down ASMs. Sorry

Relevant to that: I dunno about other people, but its nearly impossible for me to intercept incoming attacking fighters. I'm getting weird behaviour where assault packages reach speeds of up to and exceeding 5000 (depending on ship), rendering them virtually possible to intercept. It is as if Vlimit is suspended for assault packages. I'm playing on standard model with no mods. I'll try to grab a screen of it. (What's the key again?) They then skid around their targets, because they have difficulty entering range for their ASMs and especially rockets / thunderbolt guns. I think this is related to what causes Thunderbolts to miss so much.

Maybe I should try this out on a fresh install.

Also, has anyone else found that ASMs detonate at quite a range from their target rather than on the shields? The damage works fine, but this is particularly noticable when attacking Marakan CVs.

Also, I've had at least one case where friendly fighters somehow landed on an enemy carrier. (?)

And the RTB behavior (RTB: now travel 200km at 750 m/s on a straight flight path while enemy fighters are shooting at you and don't respond to commands to engage them) is irritating

[Dirt12]

I've not had much luck in intercepting fighters before they unleash their deadly load of ASM's into my cap ships (except for the aforementioned method to which millo has graciously resolved the bug with). Perhaps if the ASM release range was pulled in a little that would bring the fighters in a little closer and give the PDB’s some chance of doing something meaningful against a fighter assault. Either way, the bug squash associated with the Auto target setting will be a great improvement in my book.

cheers

[John DiCamillo]

Relevant to that: I dunno about other people, but its nearly impossible for me to intercept incoming attacking fighters. I'm getting weird behaviour where assault packages reach speeds of up to and exceeding 5000 (depending on ship), rendering them virtually possible to intercept. It is as if Vlimit is suspended for assault packages.

That's a bug, also fixed in 4.5.0.

As for the rest, I'll have to investigate.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

While we're on the subject, I might as well:

Orders arn't clearing. Like if you issue a Move Patrol, they will move and then still be on Move Patrol orders. If you issue an Engage, they will kill the target and still be on Engage orders. I'm not sure if this actually reflects what the AI is thinking, though.

On vector orders, fighters will radio that they are engaging the enemy, but their orders list as "patrol" and they will afterburn directly towards the enemy, then away, back and forth. The enemy exhibits this behavior too.. It's not common, as it only seems to occur when you encounter enemy patrols.

Fighters on patrol orders seem to think they're on Parade orders. la,la,la, just keep flying, ignore the fighters behind the curtain.

The escort function works really well though, I must say, except for the speed settings.

[se5a]

ORIGINAL: TheDeadlyShoe

Theoretically I suppose it would be better to have PDBs capable of shooting down ASMs. Then fighters could use their maneuverability to get into capital ship blind spots. That would be a hefty AI job though.

not if the blind spot was a coordinate attributed to each ship.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Well yes, I presume that would be defined. It doesn't seem worth the effort to figure it dynamically, unless you were also doing a boost on capship AI to get them to endeavour to keep damaged PDB areas /blindspots turned away from enemy capital ships.. It would still be a decently hefty Ai job.