Multiple active sensors

[Detjen (OP)]

  I was thinking about building several small active sensors,  with different resolutions for small med and large ships instead of one large active sensor.   

The idea is size one sensors, with a resolution at 2, 60, and 120.      maybe larger sizes for dedicated sensor ships SWAKs or whatnots.    I wonder however how effective this would be, will trying to cover the size gaps with a number of smaller and therefore shorter range active sensors be more a hinderence than a larger sensor with some weakness?    what about going with two sensors,  one larger with say a 100 resolution and one smaller with the 2 resolution

[Brian Neumann]

You have the right idea in general.  All ships need to have a res 1 sensor capable of spotting a size 6 missile at their combat range.  For beam weapons this will probably be 1 hull space, for missile combatants it will probably be a bit bigger.  I often have a res 1 sensor with about a 1m km range on my small escort anti missile missile ships.  Even if the missiles and fire control have a greater range this is enough for a couple of counter launches at low tech.  For a larger force there will be a bigger res 1 sensor to give them their full range capability.  I usually then have a small res 16 sensor for spotting fac/gunboats.  This will usually be set to 20-50m km range as that will let you see them and target them at a range that they will have a hard time shooting at you.  Finally I will put a sensor of around res 100-120 for spotting combat ships at range.  For beam combatants this will usually be a size 1-3 hull space sensor.  For a missile combatant it will be larger, large enough to see twice as far as my best missile range that the ship can fire (this is to give room for upgrading missiles later).  Over all this will use about 3hs on a beam combatant, and 5-7hs for a missile combatant.  Then there will be a fleet scout which will probably have at least size 10 sensors for each of these to see things much farther out.  For really small beam combatants (100 hs or less)  I often just put a size 2 res 1 sensor on board.  This will let you see anything in beam range, and if you want you can keep some of these ships with their active sensors going all the time.  They do not have much of a signature so they can't be spotted from a long distance, but they let you get off at least 1 counter fire of amm if missiles are fired at you.  It will also enable beam weapons to fire in final pd mode which is important.

Brian

[sloanjh]

  I was thinking about building several small active sensors,  with different resolutions for small med and large ships instead of one large active sensor.   

The idea is size one sensors, with a resolution at 2, 60, and 120.      maybe larger sizes for dedicated sensor ships SWAKs or whatnots.    I wonder however how effective this would be, will trying to cover the size gaps with a number of smaller and therefore shorter range active sensors be more a hinderence than a larger sensor with some weakness?    what about going with two sensors,  one larger with say a 100 resolution and one smaller with the 2 resolution

The changes Steve made a few releases ago play pretty heavily against this idea, unless the ratio of resolutions is really big (like in your second example).  The issue is that the max range only goes up like sqrt(Resolution), but the range penalty for too big a resolution goes like Resolution^2.  So if you've got a resolution that's just right for a particular target, making the resolution 4x larger will cut the range you can detect that target by a factory of 4^(3/2) = 8!  (sqrt(4) improvement for bigger resolution/4^2 harm for too big resolution).
 
This leads to the following comments:

1)  Let's say you've got a resolution R sensor of size S.  You're never better off (modulo redundancy/research cost arguments) if you add a sensor of the same size and resolution less than or equal to 4R instead of just doubling the size of the orginal sensor.  The reason is that doubling the size doubles the range; in order for the second sensor to compete it needs at least 2x the range, which means it needs 4x the resolution (since range goes like sqrt(R)).  From a practical point of view, this means you probably need a resolution of at least ~10R to make it worthwhile - otherwise the benefit of longer range vs. small targets will outweigh the reduction in range vs. large targets.

2)  This means you should never build a resolution 2 sensor (actually, you should never build one with resolution <=4).  The reason is that resolution 1 sensors are special - they're what you use to see missiles.  There's nothing at resolution 2 you might want to shoot at (unless someone's built a fighter that's all engine, or a ridiculously large missile).

3)  The other magic size is R=20, since that's the largest size of ship that doesn't require a bridge.  A LOT of FAC will be this size.  And R=20x1 is bigger than R=10x1.  So far in my fleet this game I've got R=1 and R=20 sensors.  I've debated adding an R=200, but there are lots of ships out there that come in around 6ktons, so that would only notice the really big ones (plus I've already got pretty good range with my R=20 sensors).  One might want to go with R=15 or so (to pick up smaller FAC designs) instead of R=20, but even then unless and until you find a threat will really big ships that you want to see a loooong way away, making an R150-R200 is iffy in my opinion.

So the upshot is that you've got the right idea, you just need to tune the resolutions some.

John

[Erik L]

Since it seems the AI targets the biggest sensor, why not design a ship that is all armor, engines and big-ass sensors. Pile on the active and passive defenses and make it hard to kill. Throw a couple of these into the fleet and let the "real" ships handle the offense.

[jseah]

That's actually my strategy. 

A frigate with nothing but a size 50 sensor, engines and everything spare dedicated to armour.  7 layers of it. 

It's big enough that the res 1 sensor has a 115mkm range, which is just under double my missile range. 
This means I park it 1 million km behind my fleet, and my fleet gets an extra shot at missile defence.  Plus any leakers are going to need to somehow blow past 7 layers of armour. 

Being a missile armed fleet, any close combatants probably mean I'm screwed.  But what the heck, it can also draw a bit of fire while my point defence frigates try to contain the problem. 

There's a bigger command ship with the size 50 res 16 and 100 sensors for the actual strategic maneuvering. 

[Detjen (OP)]

  So it looks like im thinking a bit too small resolution wise.    Should I use 1000 tons when designing sensors to watch for facs and small ships?   also do active sensors built at resolution 1 give you tracking bonus vs missiles, or should I just up the fire control sensors to have a greater range?

 Ok and another question I forgot to ask.    when you get into smaller resolutions under 1000,  it says max range for that size and larger, is that now the max range?   for example heres somehting I came across


Active Sensor Strength: 105   Sensitivity Modifier: 140%
Sensor Size: 250 Tons    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 14    Maximum Range vs 700 ton object (or larger): 55,000,000 km
Range vs 1000 ton object: 112,244,898 km
Range vs 250 ton object: 7,015,306 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 105    Crew: 25
Materials Required: 26.  25x Duranium  78.  75x Uridium

Development Cost for Project: 1050RP


If I were to build this, would the Maximum range be 55 million Km or would it still be able to detect the 1000 ton objects at 112 Million KM as it says below that

[sloanjh]

 So it looks like im thinking a bit too small resolution wise.    Should I use 1000 tons when designing sensors to watch for facs and small ships?   also do active sensors built at resolution 1 give you tracking bonus vs missiles, or should I just up the fire control sensors to have a greater range?

I'm using R20 (1000 tons) for my anti-shipping/anti-FAC sensors, but a good case can be made for Brian's idea of R15 or R16.  If you're going to go with a sensor for really big ships (e.g. R200 or more), then I would definitely use R15 or R16 for the anti-FAC role.

Ok and another question I forgot to ask.    when you get into smaller resolutions under 1000,  it says max range for that size and larger, is that now the max range?   for example heres somehting I came across
Materials Required: 26.  25x Duranium  78.  75x Uridium

The range numbers reported for smaller sizes are bugged for resolutions smaller than R20 (1000 tons).  I made a long post about this in the official bugs thread within the last week or two.  You can trust the Maximum Range number in the top line.  For smaller sizes, you should multiply by (size/R)^2 to get the reduced range.  For R1, if you divide the "size 6" line by 1.21, you'll get the worst-case range for that detector vs. missiles.

John

[Narmio]

I use 1, 12 and 120.  Although I have fewer of the Res12s with the fleet than the other two - they're only on dedicated fleet sensor vessels. You need quite a large Res12 sensor before it significantly outpaces a long-range missile defence boat's Res1 sensor, which need to see size 6 missiles at my AMM range of 8mkm, so will pick up FACs quite a ways further out than that.