Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: May 16, 2017, 06:59:22 AM »Yes, you absolutely need a fire control to fire missiles at waypoints. Fortunately, a .1 HS fire control is sufficient.
I have to say, using missiles to scout systems is a bit of a mixed bag.
I am experimenting with both single stage missiles and 2-stage ones. The advantage of the 2-stage ones is that the sensor will stay on location indefinitely, but you pay the research cost twice.
So far, EM missiles seem to work better than active sensor missiles in detecting enemies at range. I am waiting on the next level of Thermal Sensors to build thermal sensor probes.
The problem is that scouting a whole system is rather expensive. Both in terms of missiles, and in the fact that my probe ship has to keep flying back to base to get more missiles. So I think I will reserve missile scouting for systems in which I actually detected a hostile ship, in order to localize them, find out how many and what type of ship they have, and information on the range of their AMMs.
My MSP 3 active sensor missile was detected and destroyed at 2.3 times the range of the sensor. That suggests that an MSP 6 missile, (at least once I get better sensors or even power plants) would be able to detect the enemy ships that shoot it down. So if I am trying for real information, as distinct from detecting the mere presence of the enemy, designing a missile that can identity number and class of the enemy before being destroyed might be worth it. Above 6 MSP, the enemy's detection range of my probes is going to increase faster than the range of the sensors on my probes increases.
I wonder if it is worth making a 2-stage missile, where the separation range is greater than the enemy's apparent AMM range, possibly with a very efficient 100 km/s engine on the 2nd stage.
I am trying to figure out what useful information I can get from missiles, and how to make use of it. I am pretty sure I could use them to detect when the enemy moves out, which would give an idea as to what range their planetary or other passive sensors had.
I have to say, using missiles to scout systems is a bit of a mixed bag.
I am experimenting with both single stage missiles and 2-stage ones. The advantage of the 2-stage ones is that the sensor will stay on location indefinitely, but you pay the research cost twice.
So far, EM missiles seem to work better than active sensor missiles in detecting enemies at range. I am waiting on the next level of Thermal Sensors to build thermal sensor probes.
The problem is that scouting a whole system is rather expensive. Both in terms of missiles, and in the fact that my probe ship has to keep flying back to base to get more missiles. So I think I will reserve missile scouting for systems in which I actually detected a hostile ship, in order to localize them, find out how many and what type of ship they have, and information on the range of their AMMs.
My MSP 3 active sensor missile was detected and destroyed at 2.3 times the range of the sensor. That suggests that an MSP 6 missile, (at least once I get better sensors or even power plants) would be able to detect the enemy ships that shoot it down. So if I am trying for real information, as distinct from detecting the mere presence of the enemy, designing a missile that can identity number and class of the enemy before being destroyed might be worth it. Above 6 MSP, the enemy's detection range of my probes is going to increase faster than the range of the sensors on my probes increases.
I wonder if it is worth making a 2-stage missile, where the separation range is greater than the enemy's apparent AMM range, possibly with a very efficient 100 km/s engine on the 2nd stage.
I am trying to figure out what useful information I can get from missiles, and how to make use of it. I am pretty sure I could use them to detect when the enemy moves out, which would give an idea as to what range their planetary or other passive sensors had.