Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone? - 3/30/2010 5:04:59 PM

JaguarUSF

Posts: 261
Joined: 7/31/2003
From: Jacksonville, FL
Status: offline

Military ships that are left on "automated", do they behave in a defensive posture (only fire if attacked) or offensive posture (guns ahoy!)?
The reason why I ask is the following situation:
I leave about a third of my military on automated for escort and patrol purposes, and so I don't have to spend all my time giving out refuel commands. So I got a message from a neighbooring race ("blue") to get out of their system, so I selected all of the ships there and moved them. While I was busy laying the smack down on somebody across the galaxy, my ships got involved in a series of skirmishes against "blue" in their system again, which obviously deteriorated our relations.
I'd like the ability to declare "no-fly" zones, which would prohibit automated military craft from entering specific systems.
By the way, don't add that until after I post my review :) I hate being factually incorrect.

Post #: 1

RE: Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone? - 3/30/2010 5:49:33 PM

Gertjan

Posts: 698
Joined: 12/9/2009
Status: offline

I had a similar problem with a race before going to war. I had some skirmishes as well.

(in reply to JaguarUSF)

Post #: 2

RE: Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone? - 3/30/2010 6:36:48 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

They shuould be behaving defensively unless they come across an attacking pirate or other clearly hostile ship (like an empire you are at war with). In those cases, they should be willing to engage targets of opportunity, but normally they should be on defensive (peacetime) behavior, don't fire unless attacked.

Blue probably initiated the engagement in the case you describe, if they had already warned you. Empires will engage in these kinds of skirmishes, sometimes to provoke you, other times to give you a more serious warning, without engaging in full scale war.

We could add an option for automated escort missions to not enter unfriendly systems.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Gertjan)

Post #: 3

RE: Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone? - 3/30/2010 6:44:50 PM

Fideach

Posts: 175
Joined: 3/30/2010
Status: offline

I would love an ability to order both state and private ships not to enter unfriendly systems or areas. It really makes no sense for them to keep going to somewhere they just get blown up..
Its like some lowly captain purposely trying to start a galactic war by them constantly flying into systems of an Empire that has already threaten you.
That goes the same for the private sector.. why in the world would they want to lose money building bases and ships that just get blown up when they go there..
We need an ability to black list solar systems or something.

Of course, I'm willing to see that private sector may have private dealings with corporations (Depending on the species in question.. of course ) in other empires, even if the states don't like each other.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 4

RE: Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone? - 3/30/2010 6:46:30 PM

lordxorn

Posts: 768
Joined: 12/6/2009
Status: offline

Jaguar what is happening is that your automated military escorts are escorting your freighters into another races planet, this is causing the issue. Erik we should be able to limit this like Jaguar is saying, so our automated ships are nor affecting foreign policy.

(in reply to Fideach)

Post #: 5

RE: Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone? - 3/30/2010 9:27:55 PM

zenryl

Posts: 15
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline

My military ship do a weird things as well. An alien race have a mining station which mine something that seems to interest a lot my private sector (lot's of freighter going there). So the AI decided to protect this place with war ship. I understand that the AI see it as a strategic point but it's a foreign mining station in a foreign controlled system. So my alien nieghbor were not so happy about it...

PS : it was not escort, it was several destroyers just sitting here.

(in reply to lordxorn)

Post #: 6

RE: Automated Military Ships: Posture? Also, no-fly zone? - 3/30/2010 9:55:59 PM

Nemo84

Posts: 115
Joined: 3/29/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

We could add an option for automated escort missions to not enter unfriendly systems.

I still would like to see this expanded into an option to restrict ships movement. A drop-down box containing:

- none: no restriction on ship movement.
- friendly: ships only enter systems containing stations and/or planets from his own empire and those with a defense pact/protectorate status
- sector: a "Galaxy Map"-like screen appears allowing you to select the sector the ship/fleet should remain in
- system: a "Galaxy Map"-like screen appears allowing you to select the system the ship/fleet should remain in

I keep having problems with the AI assigning lots of ships to already well-defended systems while pirates merrily raid my outer colonies and mining operations with impunity. I've also just had an empire declare trade sanctions on me because my escorts kept straying into his systems. A system like this would solve both problems.

< Message edited by Nemo84 -- 3/30/2010 9:56:52 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 7