Noob Questions, formerly titled "Active Sensors"

[linkxsc (OP)]

So just a stupid question.   
So far, with all of my ship designs (Even fighters and FACs) I usually end up sticking an extremely small pair of EM and thermal sensors, and an appropriately sized active sensor, often geared to the intended role of the ship.     If its an escort(~5000-6000t) thats main goal is to use its 3-4 gauss cannon turrets as CIWS, then it gets a radar scanning for missiles with good range.     If its the fleet commandship (6000-10000, 10000 when i get into fighters), I just pack all the best radars I can onto the thing, and give it maybe a long range particle beam or 2 as a weapon (cause man do they scale up in range fast), and missile ships get radars just outside the range of their missiles and so on.   

Is it really worth it to do that? I was doing some math, and with this way, roughly 10% of the tonnage of my fleet give or take ends up being radars and em/therm detectors.     Would it be better to just rescale the commandship a bit, and cram 1 of each of those sizes of radar onto that? Ofcourse, scouting ships and the like would still get sensors packages.     But the gunboats, and missile ships that are always sitting in a fleet with a commandship don't necessarily need them (unless the commandship goes down)

[Brian Neumann]

Your question is a hard one to answer in Aurora.  As so much else in this game it is open to a lot of different options.  In my personal experience it is usually worthwhile having an active sensor on a ship which can spot targets for that ships weapons.  It usually is not a lot of help to have passive sensors on all of my ships.  The reason for the distinction between active and passive sensors is you need active sensor contact for targeting your fire controls.  No active sensor means your ships are basically defenseless.  That being the case having all ships able to target their own weapons can be a life saver.  With passive sensors it is quite different.  The most sensitive present is the only one that is going to matter.  Add in having sensor posts on colonies in your own systems and having all your ships be equipped with them is often useless.  Having some ships with bigger passive sensors however is often very useful. Especially on scout ships used for probing new systems or with a combat fleet.

Brian

[Whitecold]

Personally I'm also in favor of mounting an appropriate active sensor on all ships larger than FAC/Fighter. For passives, usually I put some 1HS on different ships, and a few large ones on scouts and maybe on capital ships. On a 20k heavy cruiser or even larger the additional tonnage doesn't matter much. Also you should think if you need both passives on the same ship.

[linkxsc (OP)]

Is there ever really a time when you wouldn't want both passives on a ship?

As a followup stupid question. 
Turrets, say I design 1 when I have the 4k/10% tracking speed tech, build it and put a bunch on my ships.   When I research the 5k/10% tech, will the tracking of those turrets scale up, or do they need a redesign (I'm gonna assume not, since even with better tech it would require tearing down the turrets to update them with the newer motors and such for tracking) Like I'm going through updating my fleet (the designs are almost identical to the previous, however I'm 2 tiers in armor higher, 2 tiers in sensors, 1 in engine, 6k/10% tracking from 3k/10%, better efficiency to boot and you can never go wrong with that) I'm already designed the new turrets and am gonna refit them anyways, but was just a curiosity. 

Also does stacking things like
Shields
ECM/ECCM
Damage Control
produce any extra benefit other than perhaps a backup system in the case that the main 1 is hit?

[Haji]

Is there ever really a time when you wouldn't want both passives on a ship?

It's much easier to detect active sensors than a thermal signature of a ship. If you want to passively find an enemy without giving yourself away, EM sensors are more likely to accomplish that.

When I research the 5k/10% tech, will the tracking of those turrets scale up, or do they need a redesign

Pretty much any component that you create via "Create research project" screen needs a redesign when you develop new technologies.

Also does stacking things like
Shields
ECM/ECCM
Damage Control
produce any extra benefit other than perhaps a backup system in the case that the main 1 is hit?

Shields add up. The more you have the thoughter they become.
ECM does not stack up.
ECCM has to be assigned to a fire control, so you need as many of them as you have fire controls (that will benefit from this - AI missiles never use ECM so you don't need ECCM for anti-missile fire control). Adding multiple ECCMs to a single fire control does not provide any benefit (as far as I know).
I'm not exactly sure what damage control does, but I think it reduces the time it takes to repair a component. As such they should stack, but don't take my word for it.

[alex_brunius]

Is there ever really a time when you wouldn't want both passives on a ship?

I can think of many situations where it would be pretty much useless.

• A support / point defense destroyer that you know will never operate on their own
• A FAC / interceptor where the mission is to hang around a colony until the colony DSTS detects enemies for interception
• A Sattelite or PDC on a colony with DSTS
• When there are many larger well protected ships in the same fleet that provide better passive sensor cover already

[Whitecold]

I generally only mount thermals on dedicated scout ships. My bases are covered by DSTS, and if my battle fleet is out on mission, they have scouts with them, or actives are on. I do have EM, as they often detect enemy actives earlier than they show up on your actives, and active sensor ranges give hard limits on enemy missile ranges.

Thermals are only good for 'see without being seen' operations, which my battle fleet can't perform anyway. Of course, it all depends on individual design philosophies.

[Jorgen_CAB]

In my campaigns large ships often have higher Thermal output than EM output when scanners are turned on because they only use low resolution scanner (maximum res 5). This lead to using both Thermal and EM sensor important to bring. I do agree though that you want to have large passive on dedicated reconnaissance ships rather then on regular ships. I do, however put at lest some rudimentary passives on all larger ships in case they need them.

Active sensors with larger resolution is relegated to scout ships, many of whom are docked inside the larger ships and can be positioned in a place where the large ships are not. That way an active scan will not reveal a task-force, that would be like shooting oneself in the foot in my campaigns.

It is also why I like to put at least some passive on standard combat ships, passive scanners are more important in general and scout/recon ships might not be at the same place as other ships at all times.

[linkxsc (OP)]

To keep rolling with my stupid questions cuz im a noob.
Is there any reason to actively use, larger reactor designs?

Like glancing around I'm currently at the ion drive tech level.
HS1 PO:4. 5, EC:5, RS:1 HS, HTK:1 Cost:14, Crew:2, Mat:14 Boronide, Devcost:140RP
HS2 PO:9, EC:5, RS:2 HS, HTK:1 Cost:27, Crew:4, Mat:27 Boronide, Devcost:270RP
HS4 PO:18, EC:5, RS:4 HS, HTK:2 Cost:54, Crew:8, Mat:54 Boronide, Devcost:540RP
HS8 PO:36, EC:5, RS:8 HS, HTK:4 Cost:108, Crew:16, Mat:108 Boronide, Devcost:1080RP
HS16 PO:72, EC:5, RS:16 HS, HTK:8 Cost:216, Crew:32, Mat:216 Boronide, Devcost:2160RP

I know I just went up in squares, but it seems that theres no practical benefit to fitting 1 big 1 compared to 3-4 small ones, other than perhaps the HTK.  And even then, there would be several small ones in different parts of the ship getting hit differently.

At least in the case of engines you can make the efficiency argument where a good size 50 engine (esp on civilian designs), gets you 2x efficiency over 2x HS25 engines, or more over smaller military designs.  With the penalty of combat designs might lose 1 of their fewer engines and be dead in the water.
(which when I finally figured that out on missile designs, good lord.  FYI to any other noobs out there.  1 engine thats . 5-. 6MSP with maxed power, is a HELLLA lot better in your missile designs, than a crap ton of . 1MSP engines with max power.  The extra efficiency of the larger engines MORE than outweighs the lack of fuel tank the rocket will have, and still have longer range in many cases. )
But loading in a single huge reactor vs a bunch of smaller ones. . .  The only thing I've noticed is it just seems to be more annoying to fit a big 1 into designs and not end up with too much power.  Easier to just jam in a bunch of size 1 or 2 ones in all the empty space as you add on your weapons.

[Erik L]

To keep rolling with my stupid questions cuz im a noob.
Is there any reason to actively use, larger reactor designs?

Like glancing around I'm currently at the ion drive tech level.
HS1 PO:4. 5, EC:5, RS:1 HS, HTK:1 Cost:14, Crew:2, Mat:14 Boronide, Devcost:140RP
HS2 PO:9, EC:5, RS:2 HS, HTK:1 Cost:27, Crew:4, Mat:27 Boronide, Devcost:270RP
HS4 PO:18, EC:5, RS:4 HS, HTK:2 Cost:54, Crew:8, Mat:54 Boronide, Devcost:540RP
HS8 PO:36, EC:5, RS:8 HS, HTK:4 Cost:108, Crew:16, Mat:108 Boronide, Devcost:1080RP
HS16 PO:72, EC:5, RS:16 HS, HTK:8 Cost:216, Crew:32, Mat:216 Boronide, Devcost:2160RP

I know I just went up in squares, but it seems that theres no practical benefit to fitting 1 big 1 compared to 3-4 small ones, other than perhaps the HTK.  And even then, there would be several small ones in different parts of the ship getting hit differently.

At least in the case of engines you can make the efficiency argument where a good size 50 engine (esp on civilian designs), gets you 2x efficiency over 2x HS25 engines, or more over smaller military designs.  With the penalty of combat designs might lose 1 of their fewer engines and be dead in the water.
(which when I finally figured that out on missile designs, good lord.  FYI to any other noobs out there.  1 engine thats . 5-. 6MSP with maxed power, is a HELLLA lot better in your missile designs, than a crap ton of . 1MSP engines with max power.  The extra efficiency of the larger engines MORE than outweighs the lack of fuel tank the rocket will have, and still have longer range in many cases. )
But loading in a single huge reactor vs a bunch of smaller ones. . .  The only thing I've noticed is it just seems to be more annoying to fit a big 1 into designs and not end up with too much power.  Easier to just jam in a bunch of size 1 or 2 ones in all the empty space as you add on your weapons.

Your size 1 and 2 engines are one shot, one kill items. So once you take engine damage you will be losing speed immediately. The others will be harder to kill. I'd probably go with the 4 or 8.

[linkxsc (OP)]

Reactors, not engines.  I already do moderately sized engines.  I was just making the comparison that you get something for going with bigger engines, More Efficiency and HTK before losing speed.
But larger power reactors seem to have no benefit to me other than perhaps more HTK before losing some of your power and some of your weapons working worse, for notably higher research costs, and less granularity in ship design.

[Erik L]

My bad.

All depends on your power output. Go with 150% of your requirements.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Reactors, not engines.  I already do moderately sized engines.  I was just making the comparison that you get something for going with bigger engines, More Efficiency and HTK before losing speed.
But larger power reactors seem to have no benefit to me other than perhaps more HTK before losing some of your power and some of your weapons working worse, for notably higher research costs, and less granularity in ship design.

No, I agree with you... there are no reason to go for bigger than size 1 reactors (in general) and then just put in a few extra for safe keeping so that if you loose one to say shock damage you can still fire all your weapons. The way I see it there is no direct benefit to go with bigger reactors, they a more expensive to research and give you less flexibility and are as easy to destroy from a mathematical perspective.

The only benefit is if you build reactors that have exactly the output that a single weapon need... say that you have two laser turrets that each need six power. If you put in two such reactors that each provide six power they might have say 3 HTK. Now there will be a lower chance for the power on one of them to be cut of if one is hit than if you put in 1 HTK reactors providing 2 power each. But if you always put in some extra reactors anyway it will once again go in the favour of the smaller reactors due to research and logistical reasons.

[linkxsc (OP)]

Sorry to bother again, since I've already get this thread open, might as well keep my noob questions all in 1 place.

Is there a hard limit to how high a researcher's bonus can get, like somewhere around 65 or 70?
Have a researcher who joined about 10yrs ago in game time.  He started with a 0% bonus, and hes an energy weapons guy.  So I figured I'd just have him grab the first few levels in all the other weapons/research my weapon designs and turrets, while my main EW research guy (who had a 30%) handled all the real research business.  Fast forword a couple years later, noogai is up to a 65% bonus.
Another (defensive) researcher started with a 0% bonus and is up to 60.  And I've seen this happen before, but I've never seen anyone get to 70%, after they reach the 50s-60s they start getting more "administrative" bonus and can work more labs. 

Also is there any reason why it seems that anyone who I have who joins with an already 10-30% research bonus, never seems to gain any bonus, while all the ones who start with 0% crank their stats at a crazy rate? Or is this just the RNG doing whatever it feels like?

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'm not completely sure but I think that is just your luck. I think it is random if they gain rank or more skill... it could be weighted but I never heard that it is.

In general I'm more happy if they gain skill than rank, it is only in the later stages of the game you will have that many labs that you max out on them if they have a couple of ranks. But it is all up to the dice gods.