Author Topic: System detection and tiny AMM questions  (Read 2063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bankshot (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • b
  • Posts: 191
  • Thanked: 48 times
System detection and tiny AMM questions
« on: December 06, 2019, 10:35:14 AM »
I'm building out deep space tracking stations in all systems as a hedge against an NPR discovering my systems via a closed (generated by their exploration) warp point.  Is 10x DSTS per system a good number to have? 

For warp point monitoring I've gone with a res 1 800K range active sensor buoy deployed on both sides of all warp points.  I went the buoy route to avoid cluttering my task group list with dozens of sensor satellites.  However for systems without bodies I show the "no system presence" notification even with buoys on station.  Do I need to leave a sensor satellite in system to ensure buoy detection works?

Background data for the next question: I'm at 49 years elapsed on my first game, set up per the tutorial.  I just researched Magnetic Confinement Fusion drives, so I'm designing a new set of ASMs and AMMs.  Based on a target speed of 8K and PD tracking speed of 32K I was looking at ASM designs clocking in at 45K-48K.  And with a target speed of 45K I came up with an AMM design going 75K with 8M range and a 100% chance to hit a 45K target.  I haven't encountered an NPR yet so I don't have any enemy designs to optimize against.

Should reduce the size of my AMMs to pack more in the magazines?  .8 size missiles have 94% hit rates against 45K targets and even going all the way down to .5 size still gives me 79% hit chances.  With 8M range I should have time for at least 4 follow-up salvos against missiles closing at 50K so I don't think more range would be of much use.  Should I up the warheads to 4 damage for anti-fighter use?  Or just not worry about it and consider this future-proofing to allow them to be reasonably used against next-gen ASMs?
 

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2019, 10:47:32 AM »
You cannot build missiles below size one, which answers your question.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2019, 10:59:07 AM »
All of these questions are role-playing decisions for your empire.  Aurora rapidly becomes very boring if one mindlessly pursues some optimal strategy with perfect designs.  The AI is not sophisticated enough to offer a nuanced challenge, so the outcome of ninety percent of combat is determined before the first shot is fired by how many of which ships of what tech show up.

If you can launch a big enough, high-tech enough, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacrossMissileMassacre you win.

For me, anyway, the fun of Aurora is "can this theme / design philosophy prosper in the universe?"
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2791
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2019, 11:50:12 AM »
How many DSTS you need per system depends on your sensor tech and the size of the system. You can see how far ten DSTS see in any particular system via the Sensor tab of the System View, by clicking the Passive Sensor tick bock and adjusting the contact strength. There is no one good answer.

However, it IS possible to overbuild your DSTS even at fairly low tech level to such extent that the sensor range gets too large for Aurora to handle. So I usually keep only 10 of them per system to account for future improvement in sensor strength.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2019, 12:47:29 AM »
I agree that having lots of task groups is a bit of a nuisance.  I name them all "monitor <jump point>".  Because I want to know when one of them is destroyed, to be able to quickly check which system it happened in, which jump point.  It is a little harder to figure out what sensor buoy was destroyed.

I also find it easier to detach a early warning satellite than to select a way point and fire a single missile at it.  I tend to cram early warning satellites in whatever space is leftover in a carrier.

I definitely agree that it is better to picket both sides of a jump point, because of how detection and movement work in Aurora4x.  If you have a long subphase, it is quite possible normally for a ship to completely cross the detection envelope without being detected.  But crossing a jump point involves a pause as it checks for inexperienced crew penalties and jump transit penalties, and that tend to ensure detection.

As far as missiles below 1 MSP, they are not possible.  Nor is it possible to have multistage missiles where the difference between the two stages is less than 1 MSP.
 
The following users thanked this post: xenoscepter, bankshot

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2019, 04:06:23 PM »
@Michael Sandy.

This... gives me an idea.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2019, 09:57:51 PM »
I like ideas.  Now you have me a bit curious about what it is.

One thing that early warning satellites can do that sensor buoys can't is transit jump gates.  Even if they don't make use of it, as an RP matter, it can explain communications across the empire crossing jump gates.

They can also make use of military jump engines to make a standard transit.

For first probes of a jump point, I prefer to use jump scouts doing squadron jumps, but that is more an RP decision than anything, and different RP considerations could easily make a different preference quite sensible.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM »
@Michael Sandy

Here it is... well the first draft anyway.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10534.0
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline bankshot (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • b
  • Posts: 191
  • Thanked: 48 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2019, 04:12:27 PM »
Thanks.  As I don't have any experience with NPRs I don't know where the line is between https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouAreNotReady  and https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrazyPrepared so my default action is to err towards the latter.

After my encounter with ruins and an alien wreck my exploration protocol is as follows:

Dispatch a Scout carrier to the warp point in question, which will get there ahead of the jump gate construction ship. 

Code: [Select]
Cato 2 class Scout Carrier    2,400 tons     43 Crew     254.3 BP      TCS 48  TH 42  EM 0
2500 km/s    JR 1-50     Armour 1-15     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Maint Life 3.59 Years     MSP 66    AFR 46%    IFR 0.6%    1YR 8    5YR 119    Max Repair 26.25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 22 months    Flight Crew Berths 28   
Hangar Deck Capacity 1000 tons     

J2400(S6) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 2400 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1
60 EP 50% 6HS Stealth IF Drive (2)    Power 60    Fuel Use 6.65%    Signature 21    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 70,000 Litres    Range 78.9 billion km   (365 days at full power)

Strike Group
1x Clouseau T2 Scout Fighter   Speed: 6315 km/s    Size: 7.6
1x Clouseau E2 Scout Fighter   Speed: 6315 km/s    Size: 7.6
1x Double Dutch Jump Scout   Speed: 8843 km/s    Size: 2.94
1x Smart Rock Recon Satellite   Speed: 1 km/s    Size: 0.14

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

First through the jump point is the jump scout - its job is to see if the warp point is occupied, and if it is to hopefully dodge beam fire long enough to get some sort of read on what we will face in the system. 

Code: [Select]
Double Dutch class Jump Scout    147 tons     2 Crew     38.4 BP      TCS 2.94  TH 26  EM 0
8843 km/s    JR 1-50     Armour 1-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 2/4/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 29%    IFR 0.4%    1YR 2    5YR 23    Max Repair 13 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months    Spare Berths 0   

J300(1-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 300 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1
130% Fighter 26 EP IF Drive (1)    Power 26    Fuel Use 76.31%    Signature 26    Exp 13%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 16.0 billion km   (21 days at full power)

FTR Active Search MR2-R20 (1)     GPS 72     Range 2.9m km    Resolution 20
Thermal Sensor TH0.2-2 (1)     Sensitivity 2     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  2m km
EM Detection Sensor EM0.2-3.6 (1)     Sensitivity 3.6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  3.6m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Assuming the jump point is clear the carrier jumps in and releases the scout fighter wing
Code: [Select]
Clouseau E2 class Scout Fighter    380 tons     11 Crew     113.4 BP      TCS 7.6  TH 16.8  EM 0
6315 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/36/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.6
Maint Life 9.02 Years     MSP 37    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 12    Max Repair 36 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 0   

85% 1HS Stealth 16 EP IF Drive (3)    Power 16    Fuel Use 22.67%    Signature 5.6    Exp 8%
Fuel Capacity 30,000 Litres    Range 62.7 billion km   (114 days at full power)

FTR Gauss Cannon R4-10 (1x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 6315 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 10%     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 40-2500 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 80,000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0

FTR Active Search MR2-R20 (1)     GPS 72     Range 2.9m km    Resolution 20
EM Detection Sensor EM2-36 (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Clouseau T2 class Scout Fighter    380 tons     11 Crew     99.4 BP      TCS 7.6  TH 16.8  EM 0
6315 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 22/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.6
Maint Life 9.15 Years     MSP 33    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 11    Max Repair 22 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 0   

85% 1HS Stealth 16 EP IF Drive (3)    Power 16    Fuel Use 22.67%    Signature 5.6    Exp 8%
Fuel Capacity 30,000 Litres    Range 62.7 billion km   (114 days at full power)

FTR Gauss Cannon R4-10 (1x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 6315 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 10%     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 40-2500 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 80,000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0

FTR Active Search MR2-R20 (1)     GPS 72     Range 2.9m km    Resolution 20
Thermal Sensor TH2-22 (1)     Sensitivity 22     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

They head to any potentially habitable worlds and gas giants looking for the EM/Thermal signatures of alien colonies or ships.  They are fast enough to do an initial scan prior to completion of the jump gate, allowing its cancellation to give the fleet time to move to the area.  In the event of war their mission is harassment of unescorted enemy shipping - in particular sorium harvesters. 

If there are no bodies available for DSTS placement, I drop a recon satellite to gather and relay sensor buoy information (which establishes a system presence to ensure detection is triggered).  I should probably include a jump engine on them to explain how the relay works, even though that would make them much larger. 

Code: [Select]
Smart Rock class Recon Satellite    7 tons     1 Crew     4.4 BP      TCS 0.14  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-0     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
MSP 0    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    Max Repair 10 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 0   


SR Active Search Sensor 70/640K-R1 (1)     GPS 4     Range 640k km    MCR 70k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2019, 05:45:24 PM »
Interesting.  I like seeing how different people approach design.

I am a big fan of jump scouts.  I build jump scout fighters to probe the first jump points I discover, as it is a lot easier to research a small jump engine, and I don't need to retool.

However, my jump scouts tend to be long endurance things capable of face checking rocks in a whole system, not just probing the jump point itself.  Again, because of how they evolved in my campaign.  So my jump scouts tend toward the maximum range of the jump engine, either 200 tons (at efficiency 4 tech) or 250 tons or 500 tons at efficiency tech 5.

My fleet scouts and probes tend to have much higher engine ratios.  I like having a design with a size 1 engine, a small fuel tank, and a .1 HS active res 1 sensor.  Basically, if it is right on top of a rock, it can see anything on that rock.

The Smart Rock is a very useful thing as well.  I use them in my campaign.  Although for RP reasons, I gave it a 50 year crew endurance to simulate the cost of an AI appropriate to its mission.  Most of the cost of it is having a ship drop it off, and the button clicks needed to create their task group, and the tedium of scrolling past all the task groups devoted to monitoring this or that jump point.

As far as design issues, the only thing I would suggest is separating out the jump engine from the carrier, and have a commercial engined jump tender.  You get a somewhat smaller cross section and thermal.  Where possible, have commercial ships for jump tender and tankers to save maintenance costs on your military ships.

Also, maybe not on a 1 hangar carrier, but I really like having additional maintenance storage on my carriers to ensure that they can repair any damaged system of their parasite craft.

My early rock checker designs were limited by having to carry a jump engine, so they couldn't be both fast and long ranged.   Since they had operational range in the years, they needed their own engineering systems too.  My early design assumptions for my rock checkers took a while to evolve as my fleet started including a lot of jump tenders and small carriers.  Carrier mounted scouts don't need engineering systems or jump engines, and so can be more efficient in their role.  And they don't need quite as much range, so can also have higher boost engines.  And yeah, something that only probes around the jump point itself can be a lot more minimal in terms of design.

My early scout assumptions were built around pinnaces leaving an Earth PDC CV, probing newly discovered jump points, and returning when their maintenance/crew endurance started getting low, or whenever was convenient to reset their clocks.  But as the survey ships start getting further out, it makes more sense to have the scouts with the survey support carriers themselves.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2791
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2019, 02:24:42 PM »
What can help with the TG scrolling issue, is to either give your JP sensor satellite TG's names starting with X or Z

OR

giving your real TG's names with a single empty space at the beginning of their name. So instead of "Home Fleet" you go with " Home Fleet". TG's with an empty space always are at the top of the list. You can then have two spaces at the front of important TG's that you order around the most and so on and so forth.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline bankshot (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • b
  • Posts: 191
  • Thanked: 48 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2019, 09:23:09 PM »
I considered making a jump tender, but originally thought that would be contrary to my doctrine which calls a stealthy entry into the system and minimization of losses.  The jump scout will be detected and probably destroyed by any fleet on the warp point, but if the warp point isn't occupied the carrier is small enough to be difficult to detect.  I went with dedicated thermal and EM scouts without jump engines to maximize the range and sensor size on my system scout fighters.

However after further consideration a tender wouldn't need to devote space to a hangar deck, so it could match the size of the carrier, even after reducing it by 400t by dropping the jump drive.  And two 2,000t ships jumping in would actually be harder to detect than one 2,400t ship.  Having a dedicated tender ship just for scouting seems extravagant, but I may decide that it is worth paying for maximum stealth after actually encountering aliens. 
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: System detection and tiny AMM questions
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2019, 11:07:43 PM »
Making a commercial jump tender, there may be a minimum size.  To be commercial, it would need a size 25 engine, so that is 1250 tons, plus bridge, fuel, engineering, and the jump engine.  Doable, if you have the right jump engine technology.  The carrier doesn't need to have a commercial engine, but since it has to travel long distances it doesn't hurt.