Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Order of events: Minelaying/decay
 Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Tue, 25 April 2006 12:42  |
|
|
|
According to our current order of events, minelaying happens before decay.
In my current game, I had a minelayer laying 2.25 ly away from a minefield (that was centred on a planet) with 10 mines left (3 ly radius). The old minefield disappeared and new one appeared around the minelayer.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Tue, 25 April 2006 15:39  |
|
|
|
Yes, that would seem to be correct. The new minefield was outside the radius of the other minefield and was laid as a new minefield. Stars rounds distances off to the nearest full co-ordinate. The old minefield then decays to zero (or maybe there was still 1 or 2 mines left - I have seen that happen also).
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Tue, 25 April 2006 20:27 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
new minefield was outside the radius of the other minefield
|
Minefield with 10 mines is 3.16 ly radius. Ship was 2.25 ly away. Even with normal rounding, minelayer is within minefield.
I don't understand. Do you mean a different type of rounding?
[Updated on: Tue, 25 April 2006 20:28] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Thu, 27 April 2006 00:42 |
|
|
|
Actually, according to mlaub's updated Order of Events here: http://starsautohost.org/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th=237 9
minelyaing happens before decay. However, that can't be.
I just did a test to check and, a minelayer set to lay 100 mines lays them and the field shows 100 mines the next turn. Now, here's the good part. An SD mini-minelayer in the testbed that has 2 Mine Dispensor 50's lays 100 mines the year it moves then 200 mines each year.... The decay rate stays at 10 mines per year until the 4th year where it changes to 13 mines per year then increases as more mines are laid. This definitely is NOT the 1% listed in the guts of minefields.
Here's the way it worked
1st turn - minelayer moved and layed 100 mines decay rate 10/year (10%)
turn 2. Field decayed by 10 mines, minelayer layed 200 mines. Field size 290 mines, decay rate 10/year (3.45%)
turn 3. Field decayed by 10 mines. Minelayer laid 200 mines, field size 480 mines, decay rate 10/year (2.08%)
turn 4. Field decayed by 10 mines, minelayer laid 200 mines, field size now 670 mines, decay rate 13 per year. (1.98%)
turn 5. Field decayed by 13 mines, minelayer laid 200 mines, field size now 857 mines decay rate 17 per year. (1.98%)
So, out of curiosity, I did the same test for a non SD - here are the results per minelaying turn:
Turn 1. 100 mines laid, decay rate 10/year (10%)
turn 2. 10 mines decayed, 100 mines layed, field size 190 mines, decay rate 10/year (5.26%)
turn 3. 10 mines decayed, 100 mines laid, field size 280 mines, decay rate 10/year (3.57%)
turn 4. 10 mines decayed, 100 mines laid, field size 370 mines, decay rate 10/year (2.7%)
turn 5. 10 mines decayed, 100 mines laid, field size 460 mines, decay rate 10/year (2.17%)
turn 6. 10 mines decayed, 100 mines laid, field size 550 mines, decay rate 11 mines per year (2%)
turn 7. 11 mines decayed, 100 mines laid, field size 639 mines, decay rate 12 mines per year (1.87%)
Now, obviously, there is some rounding from the 2% number, but, the SD minefield is decaying at 2% and so is the non-SD minefield. The SD though is laying double mines.
[Updated on: Thu, 27 April 2006 00:43]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Thu, 27 April 2006 11:31 |
|
|
|
Yes, to me it seemed that it should be decay before minelaying. Which is why I did the test. And, indeed, it is decay before minelaying. This also explains why multilis laid a new minefield - the old one decayed first so the minelayer was not in the minefield when it laid the new mines.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Wed, 10 May 2006 04:06 |
|
|
|
I have just sent a message to PricklyPea via his Darkclusters.com website to add this double laying of SD mines to his list to see if it can be fixed.
I'd like to see this entire thread moved to the Academy - it really does belong there.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Tue, 16 May 2006 12:11 |
|
 NingunOtro |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Tue, 16 May 2006 16:35 |
I Ptolemy do hereby declare that I must have lost my senses.
...
Strike out all text regarding double minelying, delete all messages referring to it - shoot me in the foot and, then, once my foot heals I'll be happy with myself again...........
Ptolemy
|
Yeah, I can certify that too ... now you have become a mineLIAR  
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Thu, 18 May 2006 04:37 |
|
| NingunOtro |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Wed, 17 May 2006 03:47 |
Not fair,
That was a simple typo - and, I've fixed it 
Ptolemy
|
Of course, Pto, I never meant to say it was anything else. Just jumped on the occasion to have some fun, considering you could not be all too serious with such a solemn declaration either.
Being just fun, it needn't be fair, but if you consider I've been some kind of cruel to you then I'll be glad to offer my apologies before the issue escalates any further. 
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Thu, 18 May 2006 07:52 |
|
|
|
I actualy do know that nothing happens in random order when it comes to the order of events. I will not expound upun this.
However, I am more than happy to test out the areas that are small ambiguities - there are really still a few items that still need clarification.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Order of events: Minelaying/decay |
Thu, 18 May 2006 09:18 |
|
|
|
Yes Mazda,
Most of the order of events has been dissected from the messages received. Additional refinements have been defined through testing.
What I can promise you is that in the very few years to come - all will have been defined
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 02 06:38:01 GMT-5 2024
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
.
... Now finally changed in the SOoE in the Must Know secion ...