Author Topic: Fire Control as standard sensor?  (Read 1337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nibelung44 (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 302
Fire Control as standard sensor?
« on: October 03, 2013, 01:16:26 AM »
I don't think so, but Fire Controls can't spot anything, right? So basically, if I want to cover all angles, I need 4 sensors (at least): a fire control against missiles, a fire control against bigger ships, and the same to spot the objects, so a sensor against missile and a sensor against ships (and this is the minimum, you might need a sensor against fighters, then against 3000 tons objects and a third one against anything bigger?)

 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1433
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Fire Control as standard sensor?
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2013, 02:38:16 AM »
Fire control does not function to search for a target it only locks one up for fire.  In my view the minimum is 4 sensor/FC systems per ship.

1 anti-missile (R1) sensor  (something I learned the hard way)
1 anti-ship (Rx) sensor, here x is whatever you think appropriate
1 anti-missile (R1) fire control (assuming you carry AMs)
1 anti-ship (Ry) fire control, here y is whatever you think appropriate
IR plus EM sensors...it is highly unlikely these won't outrange your actives.

If x is rather small you may then want a x*3-5 search sensor as well.  If your ship lacks anti-missile weapons the anti-missile sensor is still worth having to back up the rest of the ships...or just to see that you are being engaged by missiles.  Multiple fire controls are also not a bad idea, since combat damage can take one out quickly even if the rest of the ship is combat worthy.

I put a full set of sensors on my ships not for any "role playing" reason but because it makes military sense to have reduntancy in your task groups, to stop a concern over mission killing a formation due to the loss of a single ship and to account for times when formations are not optimal (detechments etc).  As Ralf (Hawkeye) says in a few places "playing the AI" is easy to do but it is hard to recommend this as "good building strategy."   Assuming you can afford to have specialized sensor ships go ahead and build them, it is just (to me at least) the height of folly to not have full sensors on your other ships.  It isn't like because AWACs exist that people don't put radar on ships or planes...and the British at the Falklands found out what happens when you "assume" things will be constant.
 

Offline Nibelung44 (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 302
Re: Fire Control as standard sensor?
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2013, 03:12:23 AM »
ok, I assumed likewise, you need at the bare minimum 4 sensors/FC (if you have AMM) and probably more. Perhaps the more can be given only to command ships though, these big sensors cost an arm and then more.

Redundancy. That's a key word indeed!
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Fire Control as standard sensor?
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2013, 03:25:55 AM »
Redundancy is nice, but it really eats into your tonnage and cost; sensors are expensive!

Redundant sensors generally don't need to be very capable.  A task group benefits from having a strong anti-missile sensor, but ships without anti missiles don't benefit much from having more than the minimum to detect a missile before collision. Similarly, if primary sensor coverage is already provided, missile ships don't need more than a moderately capable sensor.

IMO, only very large (15,000+ton plus) missile warships can really get away with mounting highly capable sensors.

Passives aren't very useful without large, highly sensitive arrays. At most, mount civilian (size 1) passives on most warships, and feel free to dump them if tonnage is tight.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Fire Control as standard sensor?
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2013, 04:52:21 AM »
Passives aren't very useful without large, highly sensitive arrays. At most, mount civilian (size 1) passives on most warships, and feel free to dump them if tonnage is tight.
Depends on the ships role.

For lightly armed Scout ships or vulnerable Carrier mother-ships that operate in hostile systems and don't want to reveal them-self or attract attention only having minimal backup active sensors and using passives as main sensors to find and track hostiles is a viable tactics.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Fire Control as standard sensor?
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2013, 05:05:51 AM »
Yes, that's not most warships :D

The point is, it's not worth compromising on passives. You either want good passives, or barely any.

I forgot to mention, don't bother mounting general search sensors on anti-missile ships. They really don't need it.  For most warships, there's no point in getting locks on something you can't engage.