Sensor design, questions from a beginner

[Entaro (OP)]

I have questions about sensors . . .  Unfortunately, reading the articles on the wiki did not answer all the questions.

As I understand it, for successful warfare, I need sensors for the following ships:
1.  Ship / buoy / platform in the place (or near) where the enemy's fleet is located.
2.  A reconnaissance ship that could remain unnoticed at a distance of 5-10 million km.  give information about the enemy, and possibly even about the missiles they launch.
3.  Sensors for the combat fleet, allowing you to see enemy ships at a distance of 100 million km.
4.  Sensors for two-stage missiles, allowing the first stages of my missiles to find targets at a distance of 5-10 million km.
5.  Sensors for missile defense, allowing to detect enemy missiles at a distance of 0. 5-1 million km.

Didn't you forget anything?
So the questions:

1) The main question is what technologies, and to what level I need to develop in order to start designing sensors, so that I don't have to re-equip everything with new ones in a few years.
2) What are the basics of sensor design?
3) What are the best sensors to put on reconnaissance ships and missiles - active or thermal?
4) Are there somewhere examples of sensor projects for different occasions where you can see them?

[nuclearslurpee]

The only sensors that you absolutely need are sensors that allow your warships to target enemy ships and kill them. Everything else is optional (but many other sensors are good ideas).

For beam warships, a fairly small Res-1 active sensor is all you strictly need since beam weapons have very short ranges. Usually you will want to support these by having some ships with larger sensors to actually find the enemy so you can go shoot them.

For missiles you generally need at least one kind of sensor for your anti-ship missiles (usually around Res-100) and another kind for your anti-missile missiles (Res-1). The bigger the sensor, the farther away you can detect enemy ships and shoot at them if you have long enough missile range. Again, you may want a larger sensor for detection but it is not strictly necessary.

Both kinds of passive sensors are also valuable. EM sensors are mainly used to detect the active sensor emissions of enemy ships, they are important as warning sensors. If you can detect the enemy active sensors with your EM sensors this can allow you to evade detection or prepare for the enemy attack. Thermal sensors are best used to detect the engine emissions of moving ships, and are useful then the enemy ship is not emitting sensor signatures but you also want to remain undetected (i.e., not using your active sensors). Again, strictly speaking you do not need these as you can fly around with your actives on all the time and probably do fine, but they give you more options and capabilities.

Sensors on missiles are quite honestly a complex enough topic that I suggest saving this until you are comfortable with "normal" missiles and also have some comfort with different sensor types. Learn to walk before running, or some such wise saying... 

[Entaro (OP)]

Based on what I know (from the wiki and from here), I see the situation something like this:
1. I need a huge powerful active search sensor, which will be located on a huge powerful station, which will be a heavy and very armored fleet base. This will allow me to make this sensor huge, and less fear that the station will be destroyed by the enemy (it takes a lot of missiles to shred the armor of a huge station).
The sensor requirements are the ability to detect ships from 3000t at a distance 1.5 times longer than the range of my missiles.
You can also place a huge low-resolution sensor on it to detect enemy missiles.

2. At what distance will active sensors not detect my 100-200t platform with passive sensors?
I would place these at a distance of 2-10m from the jump points through which the enemy will pass ...

3. On two-stage rockets - a question.
Do I understand correctly that if the target of the missile is destroyed, then the active sensor will redirect the missile to the largest available target?
It turns out that after the destruction of targets, many missiles of subsequent volleys will be directed exclusively at the largest ship? I would not like it to be some kind of cargo ship ...

4. I am only worried about one thing - there was a bug or a feature with the self-destruction of a two-stage missile after losing a target ...
I would be very grateful if you can tell how it works.

Regarding "regular" missiles - to be honest, I'm not sure if I want to use them.
The problem with conventional rockets is that:
 - they absolutely uselessly spend a lot of fuel flying at high speed to the enemy (if they fly 50 million km, but in fact, high speed is needed only for the last 2 million km.
 - If their target is destroyed, they self-destruct, or you need to put sensors on each of them - which is not economical.
Even when using rockets of the same size, adding a second stage, and thus placing an economical engine and sensors on the first stage, makes a lot of sense, I think.

If we are talking about single-stage missiles - I see only one scenario for their effective use - for conducting combat operations at close range. This will allow missiles to be launched as effective as two-stage combat missiles, but this requires the creation of ships moving at high speed (so that you can keep a distance from the enemy with beam weapons), and with powerful anti-missile defenses.

Thus, it seems to me that the most advantageous variant of warfare is to shoot two-stage missiles from the maximum distance.
In addition, this will allow the use of powerful combat stations.

[nuclearslurpee]

Based on what I know (from the wiki and from here), I see the situation something like this:
1. I need a huge powerful active search sensor, which will be located on a huge powerful station, which will be a heavy and very armored fleet base. This will allow me to make this sensor huge, and less fear that the station will be destroyed by the enemy (it takes a lot of missiles to shred the armor of a huge station).
The sensor requirements are the ability to detect ships from 3000t at a distance 1.5 times longer than the range of my missiles.
You can also place a huge low-resolution sensor on it to detect enemy missiles.

Size 6 or 9 for a sensor is plenty big and you can put it on a ship - a fleet scout or command cruiser works fine for this so you are not taking up a lot of space on your main combat ships with sensors.

2. At what distance will active sensors not detect my 100-200t platform with passive sensors?
I would place these at a distance of 2-10m from the jump points through which the enemy will pass ...

They will probably still be detected. I would probably recommend to just put them on or near the jump point, and if they die then it is not a big deal - a 100 ton platform is cheap and easy to replace.

3. On two-stage rockets - a question.
Do I understand correctly that if the target of the missile is destroyed, then the active sensor will redirect the missile to the largest available target?
It turns out that after the destruction of targets, many missiles of subsequent volleys will be directed exclusively at the largest ship? I would not like it to be some kind of cargo ship ...

I believe so. It is a weakness of active sensor missiles.

Please keep in mind - when Steve designed how missiles worked, one of the key principles was that even if you are using complicated ideas involving sensors there still needs to be an element of gameplay which makes the player using missiles have to actually plan their firing intelligently. Estimating how many missiles to use on each enemy ship to kill everything without wasting ordnance is a core part of the gameplay, and even sensor missiles are not able to avoid it. This is why I keep recommending - use simple missiles (just warhead, engine, fuel, agility) until you are familiar with the game, then start playing around with the clever tricks like sensor and two-stage missiles once you can intuit how these interact with the core mechanics of the game.

4. I am only worried about one thing - there was a bug or a feature with the self-destruction of a two-stage missile after losing a target ...
I would be very grateful if you can tell how it works.

Bug if the first stage has a sensor, working as intended if the first stage is "dumb" (no sensor)

Regarding "regular" missiles - to be honest, I'm not sure if I want to use them.
The problem with conventional rockets is that:
 - they absolutely uselessly spend a lot of fuel flying at high speed to the enemy (if they fly 50 million km, but in fact, high speed is needed only for the last 2 million km.
 - If their target is destroyed, they self-destruct, or you need to put sensors on each of them - which is not economical.
Even when using rockets of the same size, adding a second stage, and thus placing an economical engine and sensors on the first stage, makes a lot of sense, I think.

If we are talking about single-stage missiles - I see only one scenario for their effective use - for conducting combat operations at close range. This will allow missiles to be launched as effective as two-stage combat missiles, but this requires the creation of ships moving at high speed (so that you can keep a distance from the enemy with beam weapons), and with powerful anti-missile defenses.

Thus, it seems to me that the most advantageous variant of warfare is to shoot two-stage missiles from the maximum distance.
In addition, this will allow the use of powerful combat stations.

You do have to keep in mind that the fuel used for a single-stage missile is not really wasted. A two-stage missile is also "wasteful" - you still have to put an engine, fuel, and any sensor you want (otherwise the missile will still detonate if it loses its target), and all of this is in addition to the second stage that does the actual attacking. The first stage does not need to be high-performance, this is true, but it still need to be quick enough to catch the enemy fleet, so it is not sufficient to just put a very small, low-efficiency engine on the first stage and call it a day.

For example, at roughly Ion Drive tech level (8k to 10k RP techs), a single-stage "dumb" missile could look like this:

    Warhead MSP: 0.80
    Engine MSP: 2.31 @ 3.90x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.48375
    Agility MSP: 0.40625
    Total Size: 4.0 MSP
    Speed: 28,150 km/s
    Range: 40 million km
    Hit%: 95.71% against 5000 km/s target

These are just numbers I have pulled from my missile design spreadsheet. If you want to reduce the range to something like 2m km and use a two-stage design, then you are looking at something like (still "dumb" missiles):

    First Stage
    Second Stage MSP: 3.0
    Engine MSP: 0.86 @ 2.75x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.14
    Agility MSP: 0.0
    Total Size: 4.0 MSP
    Speed: 7,400 km/s
    Range: 38 million km
    Separation distance: 2m km

    Second Stage
    Warhead MSP: 0.80
    Engine MSP: 2.12 @ 5.0x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.056562
    Agility MSP: 0.023438
    Total Size: 3.0 MSP
    Speed: 43,133 km/s
    Range: 2 million km
    Hit%: 97.1% against 5000 km/s target

The second stage definitely gives better combat performance, but the first stage is only 1/4 as fast as the single-stage missile, and to get this amount of performance you are actually spending more gallicite (which is used in all engines, including missile engines) which is quite a precious resource for a missile-based fleet. Ultimately, each design has its own pros and cons, and these are only examples as you can do a lot more, but I simply want to illustrate that single-stage missiles are really perfectly fine and not something to be worried about as "inefficient".

As far as "smart" vs "dumb" missiles, there are again pros and cons here, a "smart" missile has to dedicate a nontrivial part of its size to sensors and reactors, which means less performance in terms of engine, agility, or fuel. A "smart" missile with sensors might be able to avoid wasting the missiles of following salvos on destroyed targets, but the "dumb" missile will be a lot more effective at actually destroying targets in the first place. With good judgment in the initial targeting for each volley of missiles, a smart player can conserve ammunition and get a lot more out of the "dumb" missiles in many cases.

[Entaro (OP)]

I believe so. It is a weakness of active sensor missiles.

Please keep in mind - when Steve designed how missiles worked, one of the key principles was that even if you are using complicated ideas involving sensors there still needs to be an element of gameplay which makes the player using missiles have to actually plan their firing intelligently. Estimating how many missiles to use on each enemy ship to kill everything without wasting ordnance is a core part of the gameplay, and even sensor missiles are not able to avoid it. This is why I keep recommending - use simple missiles (just warhead, engine, fuel, agility) until you are familiar with the game, then start playing around with the clever tricks like sensor and two-stage missiles once you can intuit how these interact with the core mechanics of the game.

I agree, it really looks like a weak point. On the other hand, except for the situation when the largest ship inside the navy is some kind of commercial (by the way, I personally would do this in my fleet, I would also hang large sensors on it so that it shines brightly! and more engines, so that any sensors determine it as a priority)
The question is, what is the alternative?
If the distance between the volleys is large enough, then even if the large ship selected automatically is a useless truck, it will be destroyed rather quickly due to its low armor, and the next volleys will be redirected to other ships.
If there are no sensors, all missiles aimed at the destroyed ships will simply disappear.

Bug if the first stage has a sensor, working as intended if the first stage is "dumb" (no sensor)

Does the error in any way relate to the second stage? Those. if you launch conventional missiles with sensors, will they fly to the point of the last target anyway, even if the target is lost?

For example, at roughly Ion Drive tech level (8k to 10k RP techs), a single-stage "dumb" missile could look like this:

    Warhead MSP: 0.80
    Engine MSP: 2.31 @ 3.90x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.48375
    Agility MSP: 0.40625
    Total Size: 4.0 MSP
    Speed: 28,150 km/s
    Range: 40 million km
    Hit%: 95.71% against 5000 km/s target

These are just numbers I have pulled from my missile design spreadsheet. If you want to reduce the range to something like 2m km and use a two-stage design, then you are looking at something like (still "dumb" missiles):

    First Stage
    Second Stage MSP: 3.0
    Engine MSP: 0.86 @ 2.75x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.14
    Agility MSP: 0.0
    Total Size: 4.0 MSP
    Speed: 7,400 km/s
    Range: 38 million km
    Separation distance: 2m km

    Second Stage
    Warhead MSP: 0.80
    Engine MSP: 2.12 @ 5.0x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.056562
    Agility MSP: 0.023438
    Total Size: 3.0 MSP
    Speed: 43,133 km/s
    Range: 2 million km
    Hit%: 97.1% against 5000 km/s target

The second stage definitely gives better combat performance, but the first stage is only 1/4 as fast as the single-stage missile, and to get this amount of performance you are actually spending more gallicite (which is used in all engines, including missile engines) which is quite a precious resource for a missile-based fleet. Ultimately, each design has its own pros and cons, and these are only examples as you can do a lot more, but I simply want to illustrate that single-stage missiles are really perfectly fine and not something to be worried about as "inefficient".

I wanted to ask, by the way, what speed should I aim for ideally? I understand that the more, the better, but still, there is some optimal speed, taking into account the point defense (there seems to be 10 thousand km / s tracking), above which the return from increasing the speed does not grow too much?

Roughly speaking, which is better - 200 missiles at a speed of 30 thousand km / s or 300 at a speed of 20 thousand km / s? I understand that everything depends on the defense systems of the enemy fleet, and nevertheless?



HM. I used a calculator from the forum, I'm not sure if I picked up the same parameters as yours, but they are close.

Option 1:
Missile Size: 6.0000 MSP (15.0000 Tons) Warhead: 9 Radiation Damage: 9 Manoeuver Rating: 19
Speed: 20,867 km / s Fuel: 1,318 Flight Time: 2,400 seconds Range: 50.08 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 6.40029 Development Cost: 640
Chance to Hit: 1k km / s 396.4% 3k km / s 132.1% 5k km / s 79.3%

Option 2:
First stage
Missile Size: 6.0000 MSP (15.0000 Tons) Warhead: 0 Radiation Damage: 0 Manoeuver Rating: 10
Speed: 7,800 km / s Fuel: 575 Flight Time: 6,488 seconds Range: 50.61 Mkm
Second Stage: 4.5000 MSP
Cost Per Missile: 1.17000 Development Cost: 117

Second stage:
Missile Size: 4.5000 MSP (11.2500 Tons) Warhead: 9 Radiation Damage: 9 Manoeuver Rating: 20
Speed: 22,044 km / s Fuel: 97 Flight Time: 97 seconds Range: 2.14 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 5.58526 Development Cost: 559
Chance to Hit: 1k km / s 440.8% 3k km / s 146.9% 5k km / s 88.2%
or
Missile Size: 4.5000 MSP (11.2500 Tons)    Warhead: 9    Radiation Damage: 9    Manoeuver Rating: 14
Speed: 28,978 km/s    Fuel: 104    Flight Time: 90 seconds    Range: 2.61 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 5.82526    Development Cost: 583
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 405.6%   3k km/s 135.2%   5k km/s 81.1%

(I don't know which is better - to maximize the speed or the overall hit chance ...). Increasing maneuverability will not give a bonus to evading point defense, but will give speed, or am I wrong?

Interesting results. On the one hand, there is a difference, but the difference is in cost. On the other hand, the 9% probability of hitting the target of 5000 km is small.
Those. there is no sense without sensors with such a difference.

Let's increase the distance to 100 million km.
Well, let's try to increase the size of the warhead to 16 - I think it's good, since it penetrates 3 layers of armor, and does damage at the same time.

So, let's try to create a missile with a warhead of 16, and a distance of 100 million km:
Missile Size: 7.0000 MSP (17.5000 Tons) Warhead: 16 Radiation Damage: 16 Manoeuver Rating: 11
Speed: 18,514 km / s Fuel: 1,817 Flight Time: 5,423 seconds Range: 100.42 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 7.31027 Development Cost: 731
Chance to Hit: 1k km / s 203.6% 3k km / s 67.9% 5k km / s 40.7%

18.5 km / s, almost no maneuverability ... I don't know, maybe against large slow targets ...

Two-stage option.
First stage:
Missile Size: 7.0000 MSP (17.5000 Tons) Warhead: 0 Radiation Damage: 0 Manoeuver Rating: 10
Speed: 7,143 km / s Fuel: 600 Flight Time: 14,306 seconds Range: 102.19 Mkm
Second Stage: 5.2000 MSP
Cost Per Missile: 1.25000 Development Cost: 125

Second stage:
Missile Size: 5.2000 MSP (13.0000 Tons) Warhead: 16 Radiation Damage: 16 Manoeuver Rating: 11
Speed: 20,462 km / s Fuel: 114 Flight Time: 109 seconds Range: 2.24 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 6.71222 Development Cost: 671
Chance to Hit: 1k km / s 225.0% 3k km / s 75.0% 5k km / s 45.0%

Again, there is a difference. Not critical, not too significant, but there is. And with the improvement of the maximum engine power or maximum combat range, it grows!

But, I believe, the most significant growth is possible with the addition of active sensors, and the appearance of large rockets, inside which there will be not one, but somewhat smaller ones.
In general, the conclusion I can draw is this: the higher the level of technology, the more sense there is in two-stage rockets.

In general, all this is very interesting, I will try different options!

[nuclearslurpee]

I agree, it really looks like a weak point. On the other hand, except for the situation when the largest ship inside the navy is some kind of commercial (by the way, I personally would do this in my fleet, I would also hang large sensors on it so that it shines brightly! and more engines, so that any sensors determine it as a priority)
The question is, what is the alternative?

Missiles without sensors. 

By the way commercial ships can only have size-1 sensors at largest, so your plan to cheese the targeting systems may not work as you hope.

If the distance between the volleys is large enough, then even if the large ship selected automatically is a useless truck, it will be destroyed rather quickly due to its low armor, and the next volleys will be redirected to other ships.
If there are no sensors, all missiles aimed at the destroyed ships will simply disappear.

Usually the way most people tend to handle this is to estimate how many missiles they need to destroy each target, and spread their fire so that each salvo is targeting a different ship. There's a few ways to do this depending on your missile doctrine but generally this is a good approach. That way, the following waves are not adversely affected by the previous waves - all missiles targeting a single ship will impact at the same time. If some ships survive, they will be badly damaged and a second wave can clean up the mess easily.

Does the error in any way relate to the second stage? Those. if you launch conventional missiles with sensors, will they fly to the point of the last target anyway, even if the target is lost?

Second stage missiles are not affected by the bug in question, and should work as expected.

I wanted to ask, by the way, what speed should I aim for ideally? I understand that the more, the better, but still, there is some optimal speed, taking into account the point defense (there seems to be 10 thousand km / s tracking), above which the return from increasing the speed does not grow too much?

In general, the more speed you can get the better as this improves the ability to avoid enemy point defense. The general rule of thumb I would follow is to select a missile design that scores 95% to 100% hit rate on your intended target (i.e. against an enemy at a specific speed), with the desired warhead and fuel range, and then once you achieve this maximize the speed while keeping all other desired characteristics.

Note that the need for speed means that the Maximum Engine Power Modifier tech line is very important for missiles. Many new players miss this key fact and end up with very slow missile designs.

Roughly speaking, which is better - 200 missiles at a speed of 30 thousand km / s or 300 at a speed of 20 thousand km / s? I understand that everything depends on the defense systems of the enemy fleet, and nevertheless?

On one hand, more missiles means you will be more likely to break through the point defense. On the other hand, more missiles usually means smaller missiles which means individual missiles will deal less damage. Generally, size doesn't correlate that much with missile speed because it really depends on all aspects of the design. Bigger warhead? Less room for a big engine. More range? More fuel, less room for an engine. Sensors? ECM/ECCM? Less room for an engine... this is why you want to optimize usually for the engine/speed, as it is the most free parameter once you select the warhead, range, target speed, etc.

HM. I used a calculator from the forum, I'm not sure if I picked up the same parameters as yours, but they are close.

That's fine, the idea is to give a very general sense of how single-stage and two-stage missiles compare.

In general, all this is very interesting, I will try different options!

This is the most important thing and much of the fun in Aurora. 

[Entaro (OP)]

Usually the way most people tend to handle this is to estimate how many missiles they need to destroy each target, and spread their fire so that each salvo is targeting a different ship. There's a few ways to do this depending on your missile doctrine but generally this is a good approach. That way, the following waves are not adversely affected by the previous waves - all missiles targeting a single ship will impact at the same time. If some ships survive, they will be badly damaged and a second wave can clean up the mess easily.

Yes, I've thought about it, and on the one hand it seems like the smartest approach ...
On the other hand, I am sure that an ideal assessment is impossible, and there will certainly be volleys that will be wasted.
Plus there is a big risk of overdoing it and destroying a ship with one salvo, wasting most of the missiles of this salvo in vain. In general, ideally, somehow find out the capabilities of the enemy's missile defense before the launch of the main combat missiles.

In general, the more speed you can get the better as this improves the ability to avoid enemy point defense. The general rule of thumb I would follow is to select a missile design that scores 95% to 100% hit rate on your intended target (i.e. against an enemy at a specific speed), with the desired warhead and fuel range, and then once you achieve this maximize the speed while keeping all other desired characteristics.

95-100%? This means that a lot needs to be invested in maneuverability ... Doesn't it increase the likelihood of avoiding enemy missile defense?
By the way, the question is ... what happens first - the calculation of missile hits (depending on their chance of hits) or the shots of the last line of defense at 10,000 km?
Because I assume that the defense shoots first, which means that speed may be more important than maneuverability ... I wanted to clarify here)

On one hand, more missiles means you will be more likely to break through the point defense. On the other hand, more missiles usually means smaller missiles which means individual missiles will deal less damage. Generally, size doesn't correlate that much with missile speed because it really depends on all aspects of the design. Bigger warhead? Less room for a big engine. More range? More fuel, less room for an engine. Sensors? ECM/ECCM? Less room for an engine... this is why you want to optimize usually for the engine/speed, as it is the most free parameter once you select the warhead, range, target speed, etc.

[/quote]
Yes, I understand, I have already worked with the calculator. So far there are more questions than answers
From the category "which is better, 200 size 3 missiles with a 9 warhead, or 100 size 6 missiles with a 16" warhead, all other things being equal. I understand that it all depends on the enemy's armor and missile defense capabilities, which I can only evaluate by entering the battle.
I will try to create the best ship for protection against missiles, this will allow me to at least roughly calculate, taking into account the tonnage, how many missiles per salvo can be shot down by the NPR fleet. But, probably, there can be only one conclusion from this - you need to have 2-3 times more fleet in order to be guaranteed to have as many missiles as the enemy simply will not be able to shoot down.

You can go for a trick - before the launch of powerful missiles, fire at the enemy with many volleys of small and weak missiles in order to exhaust the enemy's anti-missile defense and at the same time find out its ABM capabilities

[nuclearslurpee]

Yes, I've thought about it, and on the one hand it seems like the smartest approach ...
On the other hand, I am sure that an ideal assessment is impossible, and there will certainly be volleys that will be wasted.
Plus there is a big risk of overdoing it and destroying a ship with one salvo, wasting most of the missiles of this salvo in vain. In general, ideally, somehow find out the capabilities of the enemy's missile defense before the launch of the main combat missiles.

It takes practice. 

95-100%? This means that a lot needs to be invested in maneuverability ... Doesn't it increase the likelihood of avoiding enemy missile defense?
By the way, the question is ... what happens first - the calculation of missile hits (depending on their chance of hits) or the shots of the last line of defense at 10,000 km?
Because I assume that the defense shoots first, which means that speed may be more important than maneuverability ... I wanted to clarify here)

At low tech levels, 100% hit rate might not be possible, so you have to decide what value you think will maximize the damage you can do, since too much agility means a slow missile that gets shot down.

Final fire from point defense beam weapons always happens before missiles strike the target. Otherwise point defense would be basically useless.

Yes, I understand, I have already worked with the calculator. So far there are more questions than answers

Such is Aurora. 

I will try to create the best ship for protection against missiles, this will allow me to at least roughly calculate, taking into account the tonnage, how many missiles per salvo can be shot down by the NPR fleet. But, probably, there can be only one conclusion from this - you need to have 2-3 times more fleet in order to be guaranteed to have as many missiles as the enemy simply will not be able to shoot down.

The flip side is that every strategy has a counter. For example, if your enemy has too many AMM ships for you to penetrate the defenses of, this usually means they have less offensive ships, so in turn you can deploy fewer defensive ships and more offensive ships - then maybe you can break through.

It gets even more interesting when you have both missiles and beam weapons as then the possibilities multiply.

You can go for a trick - before the launch of powerful missiles, fire at the enemy with many volleys of small and weak missiles in order to exhaust the enemy's anti-missile defense and at the same time find out its ABM capabilities

This could work sometimes, but like all tactics there are pros and cons. For example, you still end up expending a lot of ordnance to do this, which can pose significant logistical challenges as you run through a lot more missiles which all have to be built, transported, etc.

[Entaro (OP)]

I still had thoughts about the concept of the struggle of war.

An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?
And the second question ... How to at least roughly calculate how many missiles, for example, with a 16 warhead are needed to destroy a ship with 3 armor?

[nuclearslurpee]

An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?

Yes.

And the second question ... How to at least roughly calculate how many missiles, for example, with a 16 warhead are needed to destroy a ship with 3 armor?

It is better to think in terms of total armor rather than the thickness of the armor. A 25,000-ton ship is harder to destroy than a 5,000-ton ship after all. A general rule of thumb which works particularly well with missiles is that you need to remove ~50% of a ship's total armor before penetrating hits are regularly scored, after which the amount of internal damage needed can vary widely but you can expect a few or several dozen points of internal damage are needed. In total the damage you need to deal is probably in the range of 75% of the total armor to nearly all of it, as a practical rule of thumb.

For missiles you also need to work out about how many will be shot down by point defense fire and AMMs, which will increase the number you need to fire if you want to actually kill something. This is usually the most difficult thing to figure out in practice and will probably take some trial and error - I suggest bringing plenty of reloads...

[ZimRathbone]

I still had thoughts about the concept of the struggle of war.

An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?

Yes, assuming that you have the various different missiles present in your magazine, this can be done more or less on the fly, just drag the new missile onto the launcher in the combat window.  You have to do it for EACH launcher tho.

And the second question ... How to at least roughly calculate how many missiles, for example, with a 16 warhead are needed to destroy a ship with 3 armor?

Much more difficult,  firstly depends on the actual size of the target - Smaller units can suffer from shock over and above the actual warhead strength.  A 16pt WH only generates 1 internal per hit to an undamaged 3 layer armour belt (ignoring any shock effect) so its depends very much on what that gets applied to  (I have seen HMS Hood type effects when an early shot managed to hit a magazine or particularly volatile engine/power plant)  AS the armour gets more damaged more internals can get through, but generally you have to sandpaper significant portions before you are getting regular internals (I usually guess at 60-70% unless you are quite lucky)

And as pointed out by nuclearslurpee the big question is how effective the target PD is...

[Entaro (OP)]

I see interesting options for conducting military operations, relying solely on missile doctrine:
1) The concept of rocket platforms. Huge ships with a speed of 500-1000, not adapted to maneuvering. Minimum armor, no beam defenses, few anti-missiles ... but maximum missile launchers.
The battle begins at a distance of 150 million km by firing rockets 1, depleting the enemy missile defense system, and starting from a distance of 100 million km - shelling the enemy with a huge mass of powerful missiles. With an enemy speed of 5000 km / s, I will have 10000s to destroy the enemy before he gets close to a distance of 50 million km.

A rocket launcher with a "reload speed of 4" and a size of 6, fires every 45 seconds, and theoretically has time to produce 200 volleys during this time. That is, theoretically, if we assume that the size of the salvo will be sufficient to inflict non-zero damage, for the time until the enemy approaches 50 million km (suppose his missiles have such a range, I’m just theorizing! - it will be completely destroyed.
Yes, I will spend a huge number of missiles, but only missiles, the ships will remain unharmed.
The plus is that I can supply my ships from a stationary base with missiles, or huge "missile carriers".

I see only one downside here - a huge waste of missiles = resources with a high degree of probability.

2) Everything is the same, but my ships should have a speed approximately equal to the speed of the enemy.
In this case, I will not have to send 200 volleys. It is enough to send 1 salvo to each ship, wait for the result, and then decide how many and which ships you need to shoot next.
Pros: SIGNIFICANT savings in missiles. You can also significantly reduce the distance of the start of the battle = improve the characteristics of missiles.
Cons: 1/3 or more of ship sizes will go to engines. Those. all other things being equal, the size of my salvo will be reduced by 30 percent compared to the first option. Also, the disadvantage is the inability to use huge ships to supply the combat fleet with missiles.

3) Risky option: fighting at a distance of 2-3 million km.
Pros:
 - Much more powerful / faster rockets can be used.
 - No extra volleys (= missile economy)
 “You don’t have to worry about (compared to option 2) not guessing, and enemy missiles have a greater distance than I expected.
Minuses:
 - We need a lot (probably more than half) of the tonnage of ships for missile defense systems, armor and shields in order to minimize losses from enemy missiles.

While I was writing, I came up with a couple more options:

4) The same as option 1, but the beginning of the battle is generally 200 million km away. Volleys are fired not constantly, but in turns. Ideally (if possible) - swap missiles in the process, for closer range missiles. Use two-stage rockets at a distance of up to 100 million km.

5) Applies to options 1 and 2, but especially relevant to "1". All single-stage missiles have sensors. This will allow you to launch volleys by distributing them across multiple ships, without fear that some volley will lose targets and self-destruct.
It is necessary to understand exactly what sensors are needed (as I understand it, it is necessary for the sensor to be guaranteed to be able to detect a ship of more than 5000 at a distance greater than 5 seconds of the missile's flight speed + the enemy's speed. That is, the distance is at least 125, or better than 200 thousand km.
With technology for 15000 RP - an active sensor 0.25 in size allows detecting objects from 2500 tons at a distance of 2.75 million km. With reactors of the second type, this will consume another 0.28 of the size of the reactor - it seems like a lot, but ... it is enough to increase the size of the rocket by 1, and it will become even better.

I am confident that the tactic of "aiming each subsequent salvo at a separate ship", as well as the tactic of "distributed salvos" without using missile sensors, would have resulted in a greater number of missiles destroyed in vain than a 15% decrease in volley.

[Entaro (OP)]

An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?

Yes.

Yes, assuming that you have the various different missiles present in your magazine, this can be done more or less on the fly, just drag the new missile onto the launcher in the combat window.  You have to do it for EACH launcher tho.

This is great, thanks!
An important clarification: do I have to have rockets of a different model in the clip of the ship that fires them, or is it enough to have them on a rocket supply ship in the same fleet?
How long will it take to transfer missiles from the missile depot ship to the warships?


If you can use this, it is very useful information! After all, it is possible, at the farthest distance, to fire at the enemy with small missiles to neutralize missile defense, then use missiles with a range of 100 million without sensors, directing missiles at individual ships, then - 80 million km - with sensors. Thus, the best missiles will remain at the end of the battle. Or maybe they won't be needed

[ZimRathbone]

An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?

Yes.

Yes, assuming that you have the various different missiles present in your magazine, this can be done more or less on the fly, just drag the new missile onto the launcher in the combat window.  You have to do it for EACH launcher tho.

This is great, thanks!
An important clarification: do I have to have rockets of a different model in the clip of the ship that fires them, or is it enough to have them on a rocket supply ship in the same fleet?
How long will it take to transfer missiles from the missile depot ship to the warships?


If you can use this, it is very useful information! After all, it is possible, at the farthest distance, to fire at the enemy with small missiles to neutralize missile defense, then use missiles with a range of 100 million without sensors, directing missiles at individual ships, then - 80 million km - with sensors. Thus, the best missiles will remain at the end of the battle. Or maybe they won't be needed

to retask individual missile launchers, the ship needs to have the new missile types in the onboard magazine.

Ordinance can be moved from the depot ships to the fighting ships, but the rate is determined by the ordinance module(s) used.  IIRC each module can rearm 1 ship at a time, and it tends to take a number of hours per ship (exact number depending of course on the size of the magazine and the rate of resupply of the module).  For my Punishment Squadron the exercise took two Armoury class colliers (1 module each) a little less than a week to fully replenish 4 BBs 8 BCs 4 CLEs and 12 DDGs.  The colliers were pretty early tech but the missile ships had more modern magazines

[Entaro (OP)]

Ordinance can be moved from the depot ships to the fighting ships, but the rate is determined by the ordinance module(s) used.  IIRC each module can rearm 1 ship at a time, and it tends to take a number of hours per ship (exact number depending of course on the size of the magazine and the rate of resupply of the module).  For my Punishment Squadron the exercise took two Armoury class colliers (1 module each) a little less than a week to fully replenish 4 BBs 8 BCs 4 CLEs and 12 DDGs.  The colliers were pretty early tech but the missile ships had more modern magazines

Ouch. That is, even having separate ships with a large supply of missiles, my ships will not be able to use them instantly?
Somewhere on the wiki I read that they can ...
But this already changes everything.

From the wikipedia article:
Loading missiles during battle
Transferring missiles between ships or a ship and the planetary depot happens instantaneously. That might be unrealistic but feel free to exploit it by reloading your warship's magazines during battle from other ships or a dedicated ammo transport (collier). Adding a collier to a task group has the advantage of adding a lot of ammo depth while keeping your warship's size down.

This is not true? Or I misunderstood it?

If the transfer of missiles does not happen instantly, then this greatly changes the requirements for the fleet. The tactics options described earlier (implying 50-100 volleys each) disappear.
The value of each missile is greatly increased. It probably follows from this that you need to equip all missiles with sensors