Author Topic: Sensor design, questions from a beginner  (Read 5341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3015
  • Thanked: 2272 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2021, 10:27:34 AM »
I think I can already start building my fleet.
Question: do I understand correctly that I do not need to have a weapon guidance system on a ship with a weapon?
Can I use some ships as fire control systems and others as weapon platforms?

Every weapon requires a fire control on the same ship. You can assign multiple weapons to the same fire control (unless it is a single-weapon control, of course), but the weapon and fire control have to be on the same ship.

However, the Active Sensor used to identify and spot targets can be on any ship. As long as one ship of your race has a sensor lock then all ships of your race can fire at the target if they are in range.
 
The following users thanked this post: Entaro

Offline Entaro (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2021, 11:27:01 AM »
Every weapon requires a fire control on the same ship. You can assign multiple weapons to the same fire control (unless it is a single-weapon control, of course), but the weapon and fire control have to be on the same ship.

However, the Active Sensor used to identify and spot targets can be on any ship. As long as one ship of your race has a sensor lock then all ships of your race can fire at the target if they are in range.
Hmm ... apparently I was misinformed again by the outdated wikipedia ...
Do I understand correctly that 1 fire control system provides the ability to produce 1 salvo?
And if I have large-tonnage missile cruisers, do I need several fire control systems on them so that I can distribute volleys from 10 of my ships to 20 enemy ones?

And another question: will it not be too costly if I first build a fleet of missile ships without a fire control system, and then, by re-equipment, add it to them?
The fact is that I already have the technologies of rocket launchers, armor and engines, but good sensor technologies have not yet been researched.


In general, I would like to make it so that I can easily convert my ships with minimal cost.
This I like the rocket option: I can use ships with old rocket launchers, replacing only the rockets. Looks economical (if you forget about the price of rockets :)).
That's why I researched good engines and armor in the beginning, leaving the research of missiles and sensors for later.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3015
  • Thanked: 2272 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2021, 11:34:11 AM »
Hmm ... apparently I was misinformed again by the outdated wikipedia ...

In general with the wiki, it is less "outdated" and more that the information is for two different games: VB6 and C# versions. The pages which have C#-specific information are labeled as such, and unlabeled pages are usually VB6 information. Much of the VB6 information is still relevant, but always check the pages labeled for C# first and only use the VB6 information as a fallback option.

Quote
Do I understand correctly that 1 fire control system provides the ability to produce 1 salvo?

Yes.

Quote
And if I have large-tonnage missile cruisers, do I need several fire control systems on them so that I can distribute volleys from 10 of my ships to 20 enemy ones?

This is a good idea.

Quote
And another question: will it not be too costly if I first build a fleet of missile ships without a fire control system, and then, by re-equipment, add it to them?
The fact is that I already have the technologies of rocket launchers, armor and engines, but good sensor technologies have not yet been researched.

This will work, but I recommend putting fire controls on the ships when you build them, even if you replace them later. Researching MFCs is fairly cheap and this way your ships will be able to participate in combat if needed before you can refit.
 
The following users thanked this post: Entaro

Offline Entaro (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2021, 05:12:29 PM »
If I make a two-stage rocket that splits immediately after firing (i.e. splits immediately more than the distance at which it will initially be from the enemy) - will this work fine?
I read in some thread that someone ran into a bug that the missiles were not separated in the end, and the first stage continued to fly towards the target ..
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2844
  • Thanked: 676 times
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2021, 05:15:27 PM »
If I make a two-stage rocket that splits immediately after firing (i.e. splits immediately more than the distance at which it will initially be from the enemy) - will this work fine?
I read in some thread that someone ran into a bug that the missiles were not separated in the end, and the first stage continued to fly towards the target ..

I have not used this in C# but it used to work in VB6 version of Aurora... the only way to know for sure would be to test it.
 

Offline Entaro (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #35 on: November 24, 2021, 11:44:08 AM »
1. I need non-rocket warships to combat enemy commercial shipping and small fleets.
These will be fast (7-8 thousand km / s) 10 thousand. ton destroyers.
The question is, what kind of offensive weapon should I arm them with? So far, apart from missiles, only Gauss cannons have been researched a little. Are they suitable for my tasks? Or do you need to invest at least 10-20 thousand RP in, for example, railguns?
Weapon objectives:
 - Destruction of commercial ships.
 - Destruction of the unfinished remnants of the enemy fleet (for which it would be a pity to waste missiles).
 - It is desirable - that I with this fleet could carry out support for ground forces / orbital bombardment.
And are turrets needed in this case, if the speed of the ships will exceed the speed of the enemy?

Then again questions about intelligence and sensors.
2. What sensors does NPR usually have in its 50th year of play?
I need a ship that is small enough not to be detected by enemy gravity sensors, while still being able to detect enemy warships with thermal sensors.
Which ship is better to prefer?

3. Does it make sense to create 250-500t fighters filled with sensors? Or ships of 2000-2500 tons of tonnage are quite suitable?
4. Which table for calculating the range of sensors is correct?
I saw a topic on the forum where such a table was discussed, but wrote about the changes and its relevance.
I would be grateful for the link!)
 

Offline ArcWolf

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 160
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2021, 01:35:34 PM »
1. I need non-rocket warships to combat enemy commercial shipping and small fleets.
These will be fast (7-8 thousand km / s) 10 thousand. ton destroyers.
The question is, what kind of offensive weapon should I arm them with? So far, apart from missiles, only Gauss cannons have been researched a little. Are they suitable for my tasks? Or do you need to invest at least 10-20 thousand RP in, for example, railguns?
Weapon objectives:
 - Destruction of commercial ships.
 - Destruction of the unfinished remnants of the enemy fleet (for which it would be a pity to waste missiles).
 - It is desirable - that I with this fleet could carry out support for ground forces / orbital bombardment.
And are turrets needed in this case, if the speed of the ships will exceed the speed of the enemy?

My If you only need weapons to destroy commercial ships and you don't want to waist missiles, i would recommend Plasma Carronades. The first one, 15cm i think, dose 6 damage and will pen 3 layers of armor. Most commercial ships only have 1 layer.

For cleaning up disabled enemy ships, you can still use Plasma carronades, but their biggest drawback is range, and just because a ship is disabled dose not mean it can not shoot back, so longer range weapons like railguns or laser would be my recommendation. That said, Plasma Carronades will still work perfectly fine. Plasma carronades have the added benefit of being the cheapest beam weapon to research, and you only need the first tech level.

side note, if you are going all missiles you probably want to research plasma carronades anyway for STOs and to increase your ground force racial damage.

Quote
3. Does it make sense to create 250-500t fighters filled with sensors? Or ships of 2000-2500 tons of tonnage are quite suitable?
4. Which table for calculating the range of sensors is correct?
I saw a topic on the forum where such a table was discussed, but wrote about the changes and its relevance.
I would be grateful for the link!)

3) yes i believe it is and i use sensor fighters all the time in addition to dedicated sensor ships. My dedicated sensor ships might have 2-3k tons of sensors alone, but that's my design preference.

4) https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102701#msg102701
 
The following users thanked this post: Entaro

Offline Entaro (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #37 on: November 24, 2021, 02:20:52 PM »
My If you only need weapons to destroy commercial ships and you don't want to waist missiles, i would recommend Plasma Carronades. The first one, 15cm i think, dose 6 damage and will pen 3 layers of armor. Most commercial ships only have 1 layer.

For cleaning up disabled enemy ships, you can still use Plasma carronades, but their biggest drawback is range, and just because a ship is disabled dose not mean it can not shoot back, so longer range weapons like railguns or laser would be my recommendation. That said, Plasma Carronades will still work perfectly fine. Plasma carronades have the added benefit of being the cheapest beam weapon to research, and you only need the first tech level.

side note, if you are going all missiles you probably want to research plasma carronades anyway for STOs and to increase your ground force racial damage.


3) yes i believe it is and i use sensor fighters all the time in addition to dedicated sensor ships. My dedicated sensor ships might have 2-3k tons of sensors alone, but that's my design preference.

4) https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102701#msg102701

1. I have a question about combat mechanics ...
Do I understand correctly that the accuracy of energy and kinetic weapons is related to the ratio of the speed of my ship and that of the enemy? Accordingly, if I want to make small effective melee ships, they must be fast - presumably 7-8 thousand km / s?
Will this speed be taken into account when firing if I order my ships to get as close as possible to shoot the enemy?

Plasma carronades are an interesting idea ... to be honest, I was thinking about railguns at first (after reading the wiki article) - they seem to do the maximum damage / s per unit of weight. However, on the other hand, carronades give maximum damage per shot, especially at the closest possible distance.
In this regard, the question. Will I be able to give the order "to be at a distance of 10000 km" from the enemy in order to shoot closely?


3. Thank you ... the only thing I don't like about the idea with fighters is the need to create a carrier for them (

4. Thank you very much, I saw it!) But I did not find the Excel table with the calculation ...
 

Offline ArcWolf

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 160
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2021, 05:37:49 PM »

1. I have a question about combat mechanics ...
Do I understand correctly that the accuracy of energy and kinetic weapons is related to the ratio of the speed of my ship and that of the enemy? Accordingly, if I want to make small effective melee ships, they must be fast - presumably 7-8 thousand km / s?
Will this speed be taken into account when firing if I order my ships to get as close as possible to shoot the enemy?

Your accuracy is calculated based on range, target speed and your racial tracking speed (researched under Sensors and Controls systems, and can be found by looking at your ground forces window, it's along the top). Hull mounted weapons use either your tracking speed or ships speed, which ever is fastest. However your fire control only uses your tracking speed. So having your ships speed be greater then 4x your tracking speed will not improve accuracy, but will make your ships harder to hit.

Quote
Plasma carronades are an interesting idea ... to be honest, I was thinking about railguns at first (after reading the wiki article) - they seem to do the maximum damage / s per unit of weight. However, on the other hand, carronades give maximum damage per shot, especially at the closest possible distance.
In this regard, the question. Will I be able to give the order "to be at a distance of 10000 km" from the enemy in order to shoot closely?
I too like railguns, but if you are concerned about RP cost and do not want to heavily invest into beam weapons, plasma area good option.

Yes, you can give a fleet an order to "Follow" (an enemy contact) and set the range to be 10,000 KM and they will keep that range while firing.

Quote
3. Thank you ... the only thing I don't like about the idea with fighters is the need to create a carrier for them (


You do not need dedicated carriers for scout fighters. I like to draw inspiration for my ship designs from Halo and WW2 ships. So i often have small hangers on my cruisers and battleships big enough to carry 1 or 2 scout fighters. With 4 cruisers in a squadron i have 4-8 scout fighters that can be deployed. My scout destroyer, which i have at least 1 in every fleet, also carries a scout fighter.

Off-Topic: show
Sentinel class Cruiser      24,664 tons       729 Crew       5,174.1 BP       TCS 493    TH 4,032    EM 2,760
8174 km/s      Armour 9-75       Shields 92-460       HTK 153      Sensors 6/0/0/0      DCR 25      PPV 105.74
Maint Life 1.73 Years     MSP 2,966    AFR 324%    IFR 4.5%    1YR 1,207    5YR 18,106    Max Repair 1008 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     Cryogenic Berths 400   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 10    Morale Check Required   

M70-E2016 CA MPD (2)    Power 4032    Fuel Use 98.58%    Signature 2016    Explosion 18%
Fuel Capacity 2,250,000 Litres    Range 16.7 billion km (23 days at full power)
Class 15-D Shield Array (2)     Recharge Time 460 seconds (0.2 per second)

Series 2 MAC A26M1 (1)    Range 256,000km     TS: 8,174 km/s     Power 26-4     RM 40,000 km    ROF 35       
Twin 8" Naval Coilgun Turret (5x2)    Range 256,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 20-8     RM 40,000 km    ROF 15       
Quad Gauss A4-17M1 Turret (3x16)    Range 10,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10,000 km    ROF 5       
PD BFC R64-TS16k (1)     Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
MAC FC R256-TS8.4k (1)     Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 8,400 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Coilgun BFC 256-12k (2)     Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
SFR-25 (2)     Total Power Output 50.6    Exp 5%

AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.7m km    MCR 157.3k km    Resolution 1
TH1-6 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km

ECM 10

Strike Group
1x Cat's Eye Recon Fighter   Speed: 12038 km/s    Size: 9.83

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes

Off-Topic: show
Cat's Eye class Recon Fighter      492 tons       18 Crew       168.9 BP       TCS 10    TH 59    EM 0
12038 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/6/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 1.64 Years     MSP 21    AFR 19%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 9    5YR 138    Max Repair 88.8 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

R3.7-E118 MPD (1)    Power 118.4    Fuel Use 557.99%    Signature 59.20    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 14,000 Litres    Range 0.92 billion km (21 hours at full power)

AS51-R100 (1)     GPS 6400     Range 51.3m km    Resolution 100
EM1-6 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a a for auto-assignment purposes
 
The following users thanked this post: Entaro

Offline dsedrez

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • d
  • Posts: 64
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2021, 07:12:28 PM »
Wow long thread so I'm here focusing on the first topics, some points I don't think were addressed yet (if they were plz forgive me).

Oh my you like efficiency. . .  I can relate.  But that's the reason why I tend to prefer beams.  Well, when I use missiles, which is not often, I tend to use my extremely efficient design: a first-stage manned missile (aka fighter or FAC), which needs no sensors, just a simple fire control and a cheap engine, can change targets as needed, can evade incoming missiles (and even shoot them down if escorted) and you can reuse it later!

Or as mentioned by others, a small corvette or frigate with a single fire control, a few missile launchers and a small magazine.

Seriously, sensors on a missile, except for very specialized designs, look like a waste for me.  I send my missile ships with a specialist sensor scout (and a few PD fighters for antimissile defense), so I need very few sensors overall, and they can be bigger.  My range for antiship missile combat is between 30m-50m km max.  Well, I tend to play with low/slow tech, I don't know how much it changes at higher tech levels.

A few notes on missiles:

1.  your sensor on the 1st stage may be able to switch (randomly) to another target if the first is destroyed, but AFAIK you'll also need sensors on *every* second stage missile, because the 1st stage can't guide them;

2.  your 1st stage need not have *any* space allocated for agility, it's completely useless unless you actually intend to hit something with it.  It doesn't affect survival rate against AMMs or PD;

3.  the larger your missile, the farther away it'll be detected;

4.  on a two-stage missile, a slow 1st stage with a shorter separation distance will probably be a sitting duck for the antimissile missiles (AMMs) your enemy will surely fire at them as soon as they're detected.

A last note: taking advantage of the last point, I'll try a new design in my current game, which is a two-stage missile, whose 1st stage is exactly twice as fast as my attack fleet.  The second stage, with 3 sz1 missiles, is as fast an antiship missile as I can make it, with minimal warhead and no agility, and the separation distance is at least 50% greater than the distance I estimate the 1st stage would be intercepted by the enemy AAMs.  No sensors in either of them.  There'd be volleys every 5 secs.  The idea is to have the enemy fire on the missiles as they approach, then lose the salvos as the 2nd stages separate.  So the enemy fleet has to fire again on the more numerous second stages.  Meanwhile my beam fleet is coming into range, and whatever ASMs they fire against my fleet can be more easily stopped by my PD than the masses of AMMs the NPRs would otherwise tend to fire at my ships.  Therefore, if my missiles evade the interception and hit the targets all the better, but their main reason to exist is to harrass and distract the enemy while I get into range with my beam ships. . .  let's see if *this* plan survives contact with the enemy.

On the AI targeting: from what I know, they'll attack not the largest ship, but the one with the largest EM signature (shields, sensors), if they don't know anything else.  Once they do know, they're pretty smart and will target your PD ships, for example.  You can't make them attack a commercial design: they'll know it's commercial from the engines and will tend to ignore them while there are armed ships around.

Quote from: Entaro link=topic=12831. msg157033#msg157033 date=1637785252

1.  I have a question about combat mechanics . . .
Do I understand correctly that the accuracy of energy and kinetic weapons is related to the ratio of the speed of my ship and that of the enemy? Accordingly, if I want to make small effective melee ships, they must be fast - presumably 7-8 thousand km / s?
Will this speed be taken into account when firing if I order my ships to get as close as possible to shoot the enemy?


the basic rule is rather between the tracking speed of your beam fire control and your target's speed.  If the target is faster than the BFC tracking speed, the to hit chance is reduced accordingly.  If you use boosted tracking speed in your BFCs, the tracking speed will rather be the maximum between you ship's speed and the BFC's.  Unless you use turrets, when it's the turret's speed that's relevant.
 
The following users thanked this post: Entaro

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3015
  • Thanked: 2272 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2021, 11:13:49 PM »
1. I have a question about combat mechanics ...
Do I understand correctly that the accuracy of energy and kinetic weapons is related to the ratio of the speed of my ship and that of the enemy? Accordingly, if I want to make small effective melee ships, they must be fast - presumably 7-8 thousand km / s?

Beam weapon accuracy is influenced by:
  • The ratio of your beam fire control tracking speed to the target speed. Note that this means a fast ship does not shoot more accurately unless you have a BFC to match, and also note that excess speed does not give more than 100% modifier. If the enemy flies at 4000 km/s, a BFC with 8000 km/s tracking speed will still only give 100% accuracy from the speed ratio, not 200%. The missile tracking bonus tech is applied to this factor as well if you are shooting at missiles.
  • The range to your target versus the maximum range of your BFC, scaling linearly from 100% accuracy at 0 km to 0% accuracy at the maximum range of your BFC.
  • If the enemy ECM is greater than your ECCM, accuracy is reduced by -10% per excess level of ECM. This is subtracted from the product of range and speed factors above.
  • The entire result for accuracy is then reduced by the base accuracy of the weapon if you are using a reduced-size Gauss cannon.
  • The entire result for accuracy is, I believe, improved by the Tactical skill of your commander and Tactical Officer, if any.
The best way to design effective beam ships is usually to match the fire control speed to the opposition you expect to face. You can try to design a "faster" BFC for future-proofing, but often this ends up being wasted resources and tonnage if you never actually fight such an opponent. If you want to future-proof your BFCs in case of running into a new higher-tech opponent, my suggestion is to aim for about 25% higher tracking speed than your current opponent(s) ship speeds, since engine techs usually improve by about 25% at each level.
 
The following users thanked this post: dsedrez, Entaro