Narrowband Active Sensors

[IanD]

Still doesn’t make sense to me that you can see a very small target far away but not a large target, so unless you are going to change the mechanism from radar/lidar or even gravity sensors as I misunderstand them, it is not a simple extrapolation of current technologies and smacks of the magic detector.

It did seem wrong in my current campaign that 40 fighters could destroy ships several tech levels higher, but without the fighters the Intruder ships would have been much more difficult to destroy and could have glassed the planet from outside the range of the PDCs.

Regards

[symon]

"Also, Aurora doesn't have the same drive field mechanic that was present in Starfire."

It doesn't? I assumed it did to explain how non-destructive nuclear warheads are when compared to railgun rounds et al.

"Still doesn’t make sense to me that you can see a very small target far away but not a large target, so unless you are going to change the mechanism from radar/lidar or even gravity sensors as I misunderstand them, it is not a simple extrapolation of current technologies and smacks of the magic detector."

I still share this concern.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I guess I am still not completely happy with Narrowband sensors. The point about cloaked ships is a good one and I do appreciate the concerns about the 'magic' aspect, although modern sensors are often dedicated to a particular wavelength because that is ideal for detecting certain types of object. On the other hand, I do want some way of detecting FAC and particularly fighters at a greater distance without truly enormous sensors as I feel that would be more realistic than the current system. I am open to alternative suggestions.

One option I am contemplating is changing the sensor mechanic so that smaller targets in general are not penalised as much as they are now. This could take the form of reducing the penalty vs small targets or perhaps changing the current Range = Resolution x Power formula from a linear scale to a graduated one. In other words, small resolutions would see further than they do now and you would need a larger increase in resolution to increase the range. I'll give it some thought and post an update.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

An alternative suggestion to Narrowband sensors. The changes to the existing system would be as follows:

1) Active Sensor Strengths are increased by x10. So level 1 tech would be strength 100, level 2 would be strength 120, etc.
2) The formula for active sensor range changes to use the square root of the resolution rather than the resolution itself. So it would be: Range = SQRT(Resolution) x Strength x EM Sensitivity/10 x 10,000 km
3) Resolution Zero Sensors are removed, as they are also a 'magic' fix. Instead, a resolution lower than 1 would be allowed and missiles would be detected based on their actual size.

The formula for detecting objects smaller than the sensor resolution would remain the same.

The following excel screenshot demonstrates how this would affect detection ranges, using the existing system for the upper chart and the suggested new system for the lower chart. The chart show ranges in millions of kilometers and assumes a size 1 sensor. So a size 3 sensor would have 3x this range, a size 10 sensor 10x this range, etc.. Note that for resolution 100, ranges are the same as the current system. As the resolution gets smaller, the range increases in comparison to the current system while as the resolution increases above 100, the detection range becomes less than the current system. Assuming a sensor with an ideal resolution, objects of size 1 (size 20 missile) would be detected at 10x the current range, objects of size 4 (200 ton fighter) would be detected at 5x the current range, objects of size 20 (1000 ton FAC), would be detected at approximately 2.5x the current range and objects of size 200 (10,000 cruiser) would be detected at 70% of the current range. All of the above maintains internal consistency and allows greater detection range for smaller objects. No 'magic' required.

The fix for cloaking would be to improve its effectivess in line with the general improvement in sensor effectiveness against small targets.

[attachment=0:3ifv1lpj]resolution.GIF[/attachment:3ifv1lpj]
Missiles are a little more interesting. Using the above system and assuming a sensor of resolution 0.15, a size 3 missile (or larger) would be detected at 3.9x of the current range of a resolution zero sensor. A sensor of resolution 0.3 would detect size 6 missiles (or larger) at 5.5x the current range. This substantially increases the range at which missiles can be detected and killed. An alternative is to limit the minimum sensor resolution, which can be reasonably explained by technobabble and maintains internal consistency. For example, if the minimum resolution was set at 0.5 then missile detection ranges would be as follows:

Size 2 missile: 28% current
Size 3 missile: 64% current
Size 4 missile: 1.1x current
Size 5 missile: 1.8x current
Size 6 missile: 2.5x current

This seems reasonable, although it gives a reason to use large numbers of small missiles to avoid detection and overwhelm point defence. On the other hand, it makes multi-warhead missiles (carrying several small missiles) less effective as you can detect the primary missile at a greater range. Larger missiles can also carry ECM and onboard sensors, which may be important when I finally get around to the EW updates.

Comments and suggestions welcome.

EDIT: In retrospect, I would leave the sensor strengths the same and remove the /10 from the EM Sensitivity. This simplifies the formula and means I wouldn't have to modify the detection range of EM sensors vs active sensor emissions. The formula would therefore be: Range = SQRT(Resolution) x Strength x EM Sensitivity x 10,000 km

Steve

[Kurt]

I guess I am still not completely happy with Narrowband sensors. The point about cloaked ships is a good one and I do appreciate the concerns about the 'magic' aspect, although modern sensors are often dedicated to a particular wavelength because that is ideal for detecting certain types of object. On the other hand, I do want some way of detecting FAC and particularly fighters at a greater distance without truly enormous sensors as I feel that would be more realistic than the current system. I am open to alternative suggestions.

One option I am contemplating is changing the sensor mechanic so that smaller targets in general are not penalised as much as they are now. This could take the form of reducing the penalty vs small targets or perhaps changing the current Range = Resolution x Power formula from a linear scale to a graduated one. In other words, small resolutions would see further than they do now and you would need a larger increase in resolution to increase the range. I'll give it some thought and post an update.

Steve

Steve - First, I am responding to this before reading your next post with your suggestion for replacing the narrowband sensors, but I wanted to make this point regardless of the suggestion.  

I don't have a problem with the way things are.  After all, you can still design and build systems to counter fighters, it just requires a dedicated escort to do so, with sensors dedicated to detecting and engaging fighters.  Yes, they will be somewhat large, but that is consistent with the game system.  It is consistent with the way things work today, too.  There are anti-air capable platforms, and dedicated anti-air platforms that are much better than the standard ship at engaging air units.  I am working designing systems and a ship in the Terran Campaign that will fill just this role.  The Empire doesn't need it right now, as it doesn't have any enemies (known) that use fighters, but it believes in being prepared and having designs "on the shelf" that they can dust off if needed.  I'll post the design maybe tonight.  

Of course, having said that, the Terran Campaign is using larger ship designs than I usually use (up to 66,000 ton monitors), so my anfi-fighter design will likely be a 15,000 ton CLE, and Terran acttive sensor tech is relatively advanced, but you can do this at any tech, it just gets harder at lower tech levels.  

To restate my position, you can deal with fighters perfectly well under the current mechanics, you just have to design and deploy purpose built ships to do so, or deploy purpose built fighters as interceptors.  Yes the sensors are large but it is possible and just means that you have to work a little harder.  

Kurt

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Steve - First, I am responding to this before reading your next post with your suggestion for replacing the narrowband sensors, but I wanted to make this point regardless of the suggestion.  

I don't have a problem with the way things are.  After all, you can still design and build systems to counter fighters, it just requires a dedicated escort to do so, with sensors dedicated to detecting and engaging fighters.  Yes, they will be somewhat large, but that is consistent with the game system.  It is consistent with the way things work today, too.  There are anti-air capable platforms, and dedicated anti-air platforms that are much better than the standard ship at engaging air units.  I am working designing systems and a ship in the Terran Campaign that will fill just this role.  The Empire doesn't need it right now, as it doesn't have any enemies (known) that use fighters, but it believes in being prepared and having designs "on the shelf" that they can dust off if needed.  I'll post the design maybe tonight.  

Of course, having said that, the Terran Campaign is using larger ship designs than I usually use (up to 66,000 ton monitors), so my anfi-fighter design will likely be a 15,000 ton CLE, and Terran acttive sensor tech is relatively advanced, but you can do this at any tech, it just gets harder at lower tech levels.  

To restate my position, you can deal with fighters perfectly well under the current mechanics, you just have to design and deploy purpose built ships to do so, or deploy purpose built fighters as interceptors.  Yes the sensors are large but it is possible and just means that you have to work a little harder.  

I agree it is possible, although I have created some ships in the past with fighter detectors and the sensors are usually 30-50 HS, which is pretty large. While I also agree it gets easier to create a sensor of the same range at higher tech, the combat range of the enemy fighters also gets higher so you end up still having to create huge sensors to cope with the increased threat range. I would like a situation where you can design an anti-fighter or anti-FAC ship that doesn't require far larger sensors than an anti-ship design. It just needs larger or more specialised ones but still within reason. Perhaps in the same 10-15 HS range that might be used for a good quality missile escort. I would also like to have fighter detection sensors with a reasonable range on smaller ships - even on 500 tons or less fighters - so that a true interceptor battle can take place away from the carriers. At the moment, I just cannot see losing any fighters unless I deliberately take them close to enemy ships. This will also diversify the number of fighter types. Instead of just attack craft, you will need interceptors, escorts and E-2 equivalents. Perhaps even cannon-armed interceptors. To compensate for the increased chance of detection I am considering adding some additional defensive capability. Perhaps a small target bonus for defence, simulating that a 250 ton fighter can dodge a missile more easily than a 6000 ton destroyer.

Steve

[Brian Neumann]

SNIP

 At the moment, I just cannot see losing any fighters unless I deliberately take them close to enemy ships. This will also diversify the number of fighter types. Instead of just attack craft, you will need interceptors, escorts and E-2 equivalents. Perhaps even cannon-armed interceptors. To compensate for the increased chance of detection I am considering adding some additional defensive capability. Perhaps a small target bonus for defence, simulating that a 250 ton fighter can dodge a missile more easily than a 6000 ton destroyer.

Steve

If you do give them a bonus I would suggest it be linear with a small bonus at about 1500 tons (30hs) and going on down.  This gives FAC's a small bonus, and most fighters a bigger bonus.

Brian

[UnLimiTeD]

I like the new proposed changes.
It will make detecting fighters a little cheap, but then again, they are still not dead at that point.

For Cloak, it's also easy to change. Just, do us a favor, and increase the mass efficiency instead of TCS% reduction.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

With regard to missile detection under the proposed new system, it looks like I would have to make extensive code changes if I allowed sensor resolutions lower than 1 so I have to work within that constraint. However, there is a simple solution that should work well. I can have a minimum target signature, probably a third of a hull space. The technobabble would be that any TN object, no matter how small, will create some minimal gravitational disturbance. On that basis, using a resolution 1 sensor, anything equal to or smaller than that size (size 6 missile or smaller) would be detected at about 1.1x the current range. The calculation is that proposed base sensor ranges are 10x greater than before for resolution 1 but a size 0.333 target would be penalised due to being smaller than resolution 1. The range would therefore be reduced by 0.333^2, or by x0.111, which brings the range down to 1.11x the current range.

Anything larger would be easier to detect. A size 8 missile would be detected at 1.6x the current range and Size 12 missile at 3.6x. ANnthing of size 20 or above would be detected at full range for a resolution 1 sensor, which would be 10x current.

Here is an example of how this would be displayed in the Create Research Project window. This is for a size 6, resolution 1 active sensor. The tech is Grav Sensor 21 and EM 11.

Code: [Select]

Missile Detection Sensor
Active Sensor Strength: 126   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 6 HS    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 1    Maximum Range: 13,860,000 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 1,509,354 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 2,217,600 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 4,989,600 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 126    Crew: 30
Materials Required: 31.5x Duranium  94.5x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 1260RPHow does that sound?

Steve

[sloanjh]

2) The formula for active sensor range changes to use the square root of the resolution rather than the resolution itself. So it would be: Range = SQRT(Resolution) x Strength x EM Sensitivity/10 x 10,000 km

LOL - This is exactly the change I thought of proposing a few days back.  I was going through the "Dangerous Waters" manual, (Modern Naval Warfare simulator from a few years back, with detailed sonar models) and was reminded that narrowband vs. broadband typically refers to passive systems, and it struck me that the original proposal seemed a bit excessive on the techno-babble front.  In my opinion, the problem you were trying to fix is that it requires 10x detector size to detect a target that's 10x smaller; going from linear to sqrt drops this to a roughly 3x ratio.

Needless to say, I prefer this proposal over the original one, although like Kurt I would also be happy with no change.

John

PS - it just occurred to me that this thread is a good example of why Aurora is still a fairly "clean" game system, even after all these years.  Your drive to unify the mechanics of all the different objects in the game (e.g. ships, GB, fighters, missiles) based on a set of first principles has, IMNSHO, a lot of the special-case rules that make coding up (or learning the rules of) a game like SF so difficult.  It's interesting how closely this mimics good coding practice - the way to keep a large commercial product maintainable is to strive for performing fixes that bring the code closer to a set of provably correct first principles, rather than to apply local "bandaids" that fix problems in an ad hoc manner.

[Beersatron]

I too like the current balance as-is.

However, that may be clouded by the fact that I have never performed combat against a fighter.

/my short 2 cents

[Father Tim]

I heartily endorse the proposed changes.

The only counter-argument I can offer to those who say 'oh, you can build dedicated anti-air units, all it takes is huge sensors and special resolutions' is I don't want to.  That is not the sort fleet I want play - I'm not interested in building a simulation of a modern wet navy with it's large task forces and specialized ship designs.  I play 'Age of Sail' frigates & line-of-battle ships and vast fleets of merchant ships scurry all about demanding protection and offering targets for raiding.  Or I play steel & steam ironclads, the battleship race, and Dreadnought supremacy.  There is no room in mental model for specialized, dedicated anti-air craft, and the longer I can pretend 'fighters' are dirigibles and 'FAC' are schnellboote (or Torpedo Boats) the better.

In short, I have chosen not to use mass drivers, orbital shipyards, missiles (much - early battleships all mounted torpedo tubes and I prefer to model them with short-range, inaccurate missles rather than energy weapons), or 'fighters' - though most of my larger craft mount a 'spotting float plane' or two.  I am happy to ignore anything in Aurora that can't be fit into my conception - I only ask that I not be forced to use something that does not.

[dooots]

Do NPR's currently use anti-fighter sensors?  After thinking about it I can't remember ever seeing a NPR with more then two active sensors, one for anti-ship and one for point defense.  I ask because I want the change to sensors so I don't feel like I'm cheating just because I use fighters/facs, but if NPR's don't even use the sensors then it does nothing for me.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, they will probably have it it easier to detect the fighters with their current sensors, I guess.

[Charlie Beeler]

I've been out of the loop for an extended period of time so bare with me a little.  One thing I need to note is that I've only skimmed the high points of this proposal.

I'm of the opinion that small craft detection, as it currently stands in v5.14, isn't broken.  I use fighters fairly extensively in my games.  My fleet configurations usually have several smaller scouts assigned to  function as detection screen from greater stand-off ranges.  They are primarily equiped with both thermal and EM passives for ranged detection of small signatures and carry a scout fighter or two that can be tasked to go out with an active system for ID'ing contacts.  I can usually detect FAC's at ranges will outside thier ability to engage my fleet units without intercept.  

What I think does need some changing is the ablitity adjust sensor suite resolution.  As in, build a suite of X size and then the resolution is resetable by the individual ship.  This would address the mass penalty for multiple installations of different resolutions that would otherwise be the same mass for different detection classes.  (ie missile defense, small craft detection, ship detection).  

Something similiar for missile mounted active systems.  The ability to set a resolution prior to launch would go a long way to making them much more functional.

Something else I'd like to see is greater task group escort ranges,  10m km is too close for my sensor screens.  At least 50m and 100m range bands would be useful.

Just my first 2cr.  I'll read in detail soon.