[Galemp]

I know there's a code freeze but if someone could look into this I'd be grateful.

Can we have a ships.tbl value that modifies the Intensity value when the ship is hit by EMP or Disruptor Missiles? Alternately, a flag to grant EMP/D-missile immunity?

The idea is to allow ships to be resistant, vulnerable, or immune to EMP interference. For instance, standard modifier is 1.0--the EMP intensity in the weapon is multiplied by 1 and applied normally. Drones would have an intensity modifier of 2.5--if the EMP weapon has an intensity of, say, 3, then it would affect the drone as if it was actually an intensity of 7.5. A modifier of 0.5 would make the ship half as vulnerable to EMP as normal. Naturally a modifier of 0.0 would make a ship immune to EMP, a useful property for a next-generation stealth fighter to have when scouting in volatile nebulae, or when fighting enemies with EMP-based defenses.

[Mobius]

IMO a new parameter in armor.tbl would be the best option because the value of resistance can be customized for each species. For example, the Shivans may be more vulnerable to EMP weapons.

[Wanderer]

Now just where and how did you manage to link armor.tbl and species info?

[Mobius]

Because creating a set of armor entries for a Species isn't a bad idea. Each entry coud have its own resistance to EMP:

S Fighter: very low resistance to EMP

S HeavyFighter: low resistance to EMP

S Bomber: minimal resistance to EMP

S Warship: standard resistance to EMP


...and so on. Having the same value of resistance for all ships belonging to a certain species would be a bad idea, IMO, because the whole advantage in armor.tbl is that it's very easy to handle the resistance in an incredibly specific way.

What if I want the Seraphim or Nephilim to have a better resistance to EMP weapons while most Shivan spacecraft, especially the Manticore and the Dragon, would suffer a significant handicap?

[chief1983]

I think he read your post the same way as I did, since it sounds like you were implying some connection between an armor type and an entire species, of which there is absolutely none.  You would have to apply the armor types to every ship of a species by hand, to do what you said.  Standing alone your sentence seems a bit misleading as to the behavior of armor.tbl.  I had to read the wiki to find out what it did for certain after reading that.  You just described _how_ you would link armor types to a species, he was wondering how you seemed to think there was some inherent link already there, as was I.

[Mobius]

Giving what Galemp posted...

The idea is to allow ships to be resistant, vulnerable, or immune to EMP interference. For instance, standard modifier is 1.0--the EMP intensity in the weapon is multiplied by 1 and applied normally. Drones would have an intensity modifier of 2.5--if the EMP weapon has an intensity of, say, 3, then it would affect the drone as if it was actually an intensity of 7.5. A modifier of 0.5 would make the ship half as vulnerable to EMP as normal. Naturally a modifier of 0.0 would make a ship immune to EMP, a useful property for a next-generation stealth fighter to have when scouting in volatile nebulae, or when fighting enemies with EMP-based defenses.

...led me to think that using a new armor.tbl parameter rather a new ship flag would be a better option. It was only a suggestion, though.

[Galemp]

D'oh! I had completely forgotten about armor.tbl.

Yes, an armor.tbl parameter would be the best solution of all.

[Goober5000]

Hmm, isn't there already some sort of EMP intensity option?

[Galemp]

On a per-weapon basis, not on a per-ship basis. I want to make a specific fighter class immune to EMP.

[Wanderer]

Wouldn't it be better to have it as a ship info (ie. ship class specific) option? As normal armor.tbl works if and only if both the attacker (most likely weapon, or shockwave) and the target both have the relevant entries defined.. Now then.. as far as i know the nebula EMP does not damage the ship. This would sorta imply (granted.. i haven't checked) that making armor.tbl affect this would require more serious coding than just adding a new ship class specific option.

BTW... what difference does the type of your armor make against EMP?

[CaptJosh]

Wanderer has a point. Because no matter what, you still have your comms antenna or antennae sticking out of the armor, which gives the EMP an in to your electronics.  It would have to be a matter of an individual fighter class or ship class having hardened electronics. Not a new type of armor.

[Flaser]

Wanderer has a point. Because no matter what, you still have your comms antenna or antennae sticking out of the armor, which gives the EMP an in to your electronics.  It would have to be a matter of an individual fighter class or ship class having hardened electronics. Not a new type of armor.

Actually no. All you need is to galvanically decouple those systems from your internal electronics by using opto-coupling. We can already do this today and is done in a myriad of electronic appliances.

Granted EMP would still fry your comms antenna, and anything that had to be unshielded by design. The final effect would be you'd loose sensors, but still have rudimentary communication, since a Faraday cage only stops a signal from entering it, it doesn't interfere with a signal coming from inside it.

[Galemp]

Uh... back on topic...

[CaptJosh]

Flaser, Faraday cages interfere with reception AND transmission from the inside. There's no way around it. They're an electromagnetic barrier.

In any case, back on topic, shielded electronics are all well and good, but I'm pretty sure you can't optically couple the power system to the radio and sensors, so the EMP would feed back from those into the power distribution system, and from there into other systems. Yes, you can have circuit breakers, but in the case of an EMP, it's like being struck by lightening. How much damage will be done before the breakers kick over?

[Solatar]

I understood a possible implementation of it in the armor table not as ACTUAL armor...but merely as a convenient way to say "fighters take 100% of the emp hit" and "cruisers take %25".

Although all things considered, a per ship implementation would be superior in my opinion.

[chief1983]

Ok so if you had it in the armor.tbl, then you could apply it to a given ship class, but are you saying that you'd like to apply it to an individual ship in the mission?  Is there some way to override the armor values for a given ship in a mission already?  That would be kind of nice actually.

[Solatar]

I think an optional $EMP Resistance:  table field would be more logical. That way I could make a stealth fighter less vulnerable to it while still giving it "fighter" armor or whatnot.

But I'm unlikely to actually ever use it (I think it'd be a useful feature, but I don't MOD very much anymore), so maybe Galemp or somebody who's interested should give their idea about what they think would be logical.

[Galemp]

But I'm unlikely to actually ever use it (I think it'd be a useful feature, but I don't MOD very much anymore), so maybe Galemp or somebody who's interested should give their idea about what they think would be logical.

Well, there could be a campaign that takes place in the Capella Nebula which is very heavily EMP charged, and as the campaign progresses GTVI isses a new fighter class with EMP shielding, and later in the campaign a new fighter with EMP immunity. Could be a nice way to up the tech level, especially if the newer fighters are inferior and the player has to choose from taking a fighter with Tempests and tolerating the interference, or taking a weaker fighter and being able to use Harpoons.

This isn't what I had in mind (that's beyond your level of clearance, Pilot) but it's a perfectly good application of the system.

[Flaser]

Flaser, Faraday cages interfere with reception AND transmission from the inside. There's no way around it. They're an electromagnetic barrier.

In any case, back on topic, shielded electronics are all well and good, but I'm pretty sure you can't optically couple the power system to the radio and sensors, so the EMP would feed back from those into the power distribution system, and from there into other systems. Yes, you can have circuit breakers, but in the case of an EMP, it's like being struck by lightening. How much damage will be done before the breakers kick over?

You're right: the faraday cage will interfere with signal reception. So yes: comms will be hit. But you'll still be able to send out a signal. (Granted it could be somewhat distorted, but the signal will still go out and you can compensate for the distortion).

However your argument is not valid with the power system: those system are a lot more tolerant the the sensitive electronics you find in control systems. A lot of time by design you can decouple delicate control and resistant power system in the device itself.

[Galemp]

Guys. Gameplay > realism. I like that you're discussing optical couplings and faraday cages but I just want a table field here. When someone gets around to writing the tech room blurb we'll bring this up again.