DarkSpace

Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target

Target met!

Latest Topics

- Anyone still playing from a decade ago or longer? »

- Game still active. NICE! »

- Password resett »

- Darkspace Idea/Opinion Submission Thread »

- Rank Bug maybe? »

- Next patch .... »

- Nobody will remember me...but. »

- 22 years...asking for help from one community to another »

- DS on Ubuntu? »

- Medal Breakpoints »

Development Blog

- Roadmap »

- Hello strangers, it’s been a while... »

- State of DarkSpace Development »

- Potential planetary interdictor changes! »

- The Silent Cartographer »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
No kills today... yet.

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
04/27/24 +15.4 Hours

Search

Anniversaries

No anniversaries today.

Social Media

Why not join us on Discord for a chat, or follow us on Twitter or Facebook for more information and fan updates?

Network

DarkSpace

DarkSpace - Beta

Palestar


	[FAQ]
Forum Index » » Developer Feedback » » DreadSpace, and Lanchester's Laws.

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )

Author

DreadSpace, and Lanchester's Laws.

Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy

Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars

Posted: 2008-06-27 15:25

Warning: Rambling article alert. I thought I'd throw this one out, if only to provoke some thought. Do with it as you will.

The whole 2:1 ship class ratio and how it makes dreads really nasty seems to have prompted a lot of argument as to whether this will cause dreadnaughts to take over the game; "DreadSpace," with exclamations that you'll need a stupendous number of smaller ships to take down larger ones.

Now, I've played a fair few tabletop strategy games, and during my quest to find an optimum way to kill people, I've come across a set of mathematical laws known as "Lanchester's Laws." These are, essentially, a set of differential equations designed to calculate the relative casualty-causing power of two forces, either when fighting one-on-one (Lanchester's Linear Law), for example when fighting with swords, or when both sides have ranged weapons (Lanchester's Square Law), and can hit any other combatant and be hit by any other combatant.

This second instance is obviously the case in DarkSpace, since in any given melee everyone is usually going to be able to fire at anyone else.

In short, Lanchester's Square Law dictates, assuming that both forces are of equal technological ability, that the larger one will win. A force twice as large as the other will, of course, prevail. However, the larger force does not have a two-to-one combat advantage: It has a FOUR-to-one combat advantage. It will eliminate the enemy twice as fast and take half as many casualties as a simple linear comparison would suggest. The effectiveness of a force is the square of the number of units in the force. Three times as many units gives a nine-to-one advantage.

So how does this apply to DarkSpace? We're not only comparing force size, but those forces have units with differing amounts of combat power.

Dreadnaughts, assuming the developers have designed them correctly, are twice as effective as cruisers (this doesn't simply mean twice the armour and twice the guns, though; that would make them four times as effective). So, you may think that this counteracts their numerical advantage. However, since a dreadnaught will either have twice as much armour or twice as many guns (or a compromise between the two), two cruisers will either out-armour or out-gun a dreadnaught, since they will have twice as much of both.

Lanchester's Square Law has provision for this; "weapon efficiency", the killing power of each unit, advances linearly, and is applied after force sizes have been accounted for.

Examples:
Let a cruiser have a force size of 1 (obviously) and a weapon efficiency also of 1. So a single cruiser has a combat strength of the square of its size, multiplied by its weapon efficiency. (1*1)*1 = 1.
A dreadnaught also has a force size of one, but its weapon efficiency is two, since it is twice as good as a cruiser. (1*1)*2 = 2. A dreadnaught has twice the strength of a cruiser.

This would seem to suggest that two cruisers does indeed equal one dreadnaught. However:
Two cruisers have a force strength of two, and a weapon efficiency of one. (2*2)*1 = 4. Two cruisers have a combat strength of four, which is twice as much as a single dreadnaught. One cruiser may be destroyed, but the dreadnaught is also probably going to lose.
Fighting two dreads, you probably won't even need to outnumber them two-to one. Two dreads, squared, multiplied by their weapon efficiency of two, yields eight. Three cruisers (3*3) give nine. The three cruisers will have the advantage, even though common sense would suggest that it would take four to just break even. Scaling this further shows that the advantage posessed by dreadnaughts is not, in fact, as overwhelming as it seems. Yes, you still need to outnumber them, but not by all that much.

Now, all that this really shows is that dreadnaughts are still more powerful than cruisers, merely to a lesser degree. However, this smaller margin gives teamwork and skill a larger part in success or failure than it would seem from the simple statement "dreadnaughts are twice as good as cruisers."
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]

Faustus
Marshal
Palestar

Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 2748
From: Austin, Texas

Posted: 2008-06-27 16:58

Very insightful and was exactly what I was going for

... I'm impressed.
_________________

Fattierob
Vice Admiral

Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059

Posted: 2008-06-27 17:28

I really did like this. It's pretty interesting, and the example has some good math behind it. However, I think this is missing the real point of the discussion

Quote:

On 2008-06-27 15:25, Gejaheline wrote:
Two cruisers have a force strength of two, and a weapon efficiency of one. (2*2)*1 = 4. Two cruisers have a combat strength of four, which is twice as much as a single dreadnaught. One cruiser may be destroyed, but the dreadnaught is also probably going to lose.

Quote:

One cruiser may be destroyed, but the dreadnaught is also probably going to lose.

Who wants to fly that cruiser? What person in their right mind would go "I will fly a cruiser that will explode statistically instead of flying an equally powerful dreadnought that I have access to".

The only people who will fly anything but a Dreadnought are those who don't have it.
_________________

Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica

Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom

Posted: 2008-06-27 17:45

This is more or less what is intended.

I couldn't remember the name of the particular theory, although I read into it years ago. But the balance is loosely designed to coincide with the law as explained here.

A more important question would be "Who is going to fly that dreadnought?"

The dreadnought pilot stands to lose a substantially greater amount of prestige from death than the two cruisers combined, and will also earn less prestige from destroying them due to the combined differences in hull HP.

[ This Message was edited by: Drafell on 2008-06-27 17:54 ]
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired

CrashDown
Cadet

Joined: May 29, 2007
Posts: 63
From: Estonia

Posted: 2008-06-27 18:26

wow

*claps*
_________________

Dionysian *EP5* (Angel of Destruction)
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*

Joined: November 21, 2003
Posts: 135

Posted: 2008-06-27 18:42

1 thing that no-one has mentioned in the whole dreadspace debate.

You are assuming that the profile of players in 1.5 will be the same. I.e. relatively few noobs and a lot of ADmirals and above.

Now whilst it is true that many people who have played are admirals and above - how many are likely to come back. If you quit 3 years ago and have moved on in life will you come back. some will for a while of course but not all.

Equally - given a game withj more playing, less lag, better combat etc it might be more attractive for noobs. therefore more small ships.

think of it as a pyramid. 100 admirals and above in a game with 150 active players = dreadspace.

100 admirals with 400 active players = balance. Who knows if we'll get hundreds of active players but hopefully a promotional push to all who have previously registered - i.e. a coupon when Beta goes live to get them to try it again mighty help. ( just stagger the mails if you do that.)

That plus a bit of PR with gamer websites and we may just get a few extra people strolling along. Get the ga,me working better & better experience in game more of those that try may stay.
_________________

Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black

Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A

Posted: 2008-06-27 18:54

It just seems you all expect it to be One dread, just one.

When in reality, it's going to be alot of dreads compared to the ammount of cruisers and below, atleast until we get more newer players with less rank.

But as it is right now, a good bit of the community can use a dread, and a good bit of the old community expected to return for a time, can use a dread. When they all find out that a Dread > Cruiser, their not going to go for the teamwork aspect of the game, their going to go for the more powerful ship.

I dunno, maybe it'll all work out perfectly, and me seeing a flaw is just retardation.
_________________

Enterprise
Chief Marshal

Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada

Posted: 2008-06-27 19:05

I thought this article was pretty interesting, it seemed to agree with the instinctual part of my brain that processes all the battles and crap that I've been involved with.

But it also proved a point I was attempting to illustrate before.

For some food for thought, a Dreadnought vs. Dreadnought battle would obviously, come a stalemate, if I understand this correctly.

However, what if we add on dreadnoughts? They out-gun and out-armor another dreadnought together.

This proves the point that dreadnoughts are eight times as effective in the same situation numerically, right?

If thats the case, then 2 dreadnoughts vs 1 dreadnought is twice as effective as 2 cruisers vs. 1 dreadnought.

The point Im trying to illustrate being overall, that in the end, to use dreadnoughts is far more effective than use cruisers. If thats the case, then the only advantage to using cruisers over dreadnoughts is less prestige loss, but given the overall effectiveness, the likelyhood of one of the attacking dreadnoughts dieing as well is reduced is it not? Wouldn't that be safer, instead of flying two cruisers where statistically one will die?

That creates a problem, that people will realize and understand that flying dreadnoughts in groups means that they require less people to do the same job, and outnumbering people with dreadnoughts is far more effective and requires less people than doing so with cruisers. Given the little gap between cruisers and dreadnoughts, its not hard to see where this ends up.

-Ent

[ This Message was edited by: Enterprise on 2008-06-28 02:56 ]
_________________

CrashDown
Cadet

Joined: May 29, 2007
Posts: 63
From: Estonia

Posted: 2008-06-28 05:19

yeh but cruisers have mor fuel and move faster, good for roaming gangs slaugtering solo dreads.
_________________

Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black

Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A

Posted: 2008-06-28 05:54

Quote:

On 2008-06-28 05:19, CrashDown wrote:
solo dreads.

Flaw.

There wont ever be a solo dread.
_________________

CrashDown
Cadet

Joined: May 29, 2007
Posts: 63
From: Estonia

Posted: 2008-06-28 06:41

Quote:

On 2008-06-28 05:54, Crim {OLIOLIO} wrote:
Quote:

On 2008-06-28 05:19, CrashDown wrote:
solo dreads.

Flaw.

There wont ever be a solo dread.

ahh you ofcourse mean there will always be same or greater number of dreads than of cruiers

_________________

Shigernafy
Admiral

Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation

Posted: 2008-06-28 10:45

It seems like the counter argument people are complaining that dreads are more powerful than cruisers.

Which is kinda the point.

The only way to encourage someone NOT to fly a dread would be to make a cruiser better than it - either immensely cheap to lose so dread death costs are prohibitive, equal or better in firepower, stronger in armor, or whatever. But having small ships better than big ships... kind of defeats the purpose of the big ships AND gives us the same complaint-ridden situation we have no in 1483 with PDs et al.

Basically, I see no easy solution. Though more to the point, I also don't see a clear problem.

I haven't been in game in a while now, so I have no idea how, say, the stress test last weekend went. But have we had a good battle with a couple dreads and a handful of cruisers? Is it really that bad?
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"

Enterprise
Chief Marshal

Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada

Posted: 2008-06-28 11:57

Quote:

Basically, I see no easy solution. Though more to the point, I also don't see a clear problem.

Well that depends. If you see an overabundance of dreads in the MV as a problem, well there you go. If its not seen as a problem, then I suppose it doesnt need a solution.

The only reason people chose not to use dreadnoughts in abundance in 1.483 is because the prestige loss wasn't worth how much they sucked. Now the reverse is true, Dreadnoughts are very much worth the prestige loss they potentially have. Its just inevitable that smaller ships will see their role diminished unless, somehow, the number of cruisers, destroyers, frigates etc. outnumber the number of dreadnoughts in play.

Somehow, I don't see that happening. Maybe because I'm cynical and I'm used to people always going for what they percieve as the most powerful ship (and Dreadnoughts most certainly are). Maybe I'm glaringly wrong and people will somehow hate using Dreadnoughts so much that only a few people will use them and what I see as a flaw is just me being paranoid.

-Ent
_________________

Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy

Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars

Posted: 2008-06-28 13:00

Hee, thanks for the praise. ^.^

While on paper dreadnaughts are, apparently, better than cruisers, one must also remember that these forumulae make several big assumptions, ones that can be safely ignored during game design but which are extremely important in combat, be it real or in-game.

Firstly, there is the assumption that the combatants are going to fight to the death. This doesn't often happen in DS, unless someone gets interdicted.

Secondly, and more importantly, it assumes that all combatants can bring 100% of their effective power on a target 100% of the time, and hit their target with 100% accuracy.
How often does this happen in DarkSpace? If I'm in a cruiser fighting a dreadnaught, I'm going to keep at a distance, vary my speed and direction, and get behind them. If I do that, I can avoid virtually all of the dreadnaught's firepower while still fighting effectively.
If I'm using, god forbid, a scout, I could evade until doomsday, barring having a dread dropped right on top of me.

Now, I can see what people are saying; you're not going to be able to get in a one-on-one with a dreadnaught, simply because while you're fighting one another will be creeping up on you.

But a dreadnaught will have a lot of trouble killing a scout or dessie; its huge guns will miss all the time, and it can't get within beam range. The person flying the dreadnaught is going to have to downgrade to a smaller, faster ship that has weapons capable of hitting smaller craft, or risk being slowly plinked to death. Yes, there are tactics to kill small things (point jumping, for example), but equally there are tactics on the part of small craft to avoid these (ECM and becoming untargetable, for instance). A balanced force is going to need small ships to intercept the enemy small craft (or ECCM them, so they can get point-jumped).

So yes, you could take a dreadnaught against that enemy dreadnaught and hammer them into submission. But if you've got the skill to do it, using a cruiser (or even a dessie; 1.484 has certainly demonstrated how much harder it is to hit a destroyer) might be more risky, and the battle might take longer, but you could potentially suffer less damage and encourage the enemy to select a smaller craft.

Or, of course, everyone could fly dreadnaughts. But then the newbies would be safe anyway, since nobody else would be able to see them thanks to their super ECM.
It could go either way; I don't think anyone here can see the future. But, in my opinion, 1.5 is an improvement, and the newbies won't suffer horribly either way. Well, no more than someone learning how to play a game will suffer, at least.
Come to think about it, this should probably be subjected to some testing: An equal number of dreadnaughts versus an equal number of cruiser-class and smaller, to see who does better.
Although, on that note, a thought strikes me: Surely a scout that dies is just going to respawn and rejoin the fight? You only start to "lose" when you lose more pres than the enemy, so theoretically you could outnumber a dreadnaught with fewer players simply by respawning, assuming the enemy doesn't repair in between bouts.

Anyway, just a few thoughts I've had. Thank you, everyone, for reading through both this and my previous post, and I hope I've made some good points to consider.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]

Junky Da FunkyMonke
Admiral

Joined: May 14, 2007
Posts: 347
From: The Hotel California, takes excursions to Deep Sexys Space every now and then

Posted: 2008-06-28 13:17

I see a flaw this formula does not take into account skill, different weapons used, different factions, or armor. Which makes it more of a guessing game then a statistic. We aren't in the exact same ships sitting in the same spot just alphaing each other.
_________________

Goto page ( 1 \| 2 Next Page )

Page created in 0.021026 seconds.