Author Topic: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?  (Read 4812 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Iranon

  • Guest
New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« on: February 17, 2018, 06:00:20 PM »
Currently, I find small missile fighters quite useful, as they can often get quite close to their prey without being detected.
The sensor model in C# Aurora is going to be very kind to the very small variants, to an extent I consider problematic.
Using Steve's example table from the C# Changes List:

A size 1.2 Resolution 100 sensor (equivalent FC leaves space for a size 7-ish box launcher for the combatants; enough for an efficient 2-stage missile if missile range would otherwise be more limiting than sensor range. This should fit into 150t with long endurance.) has a range upwards of 40 million.
A sensor with the ideal resolution of 3 would still need to be about 17HS to illuminate the fighters at this range.
At Resolution 1, the sensor would have to approach 30HS, at Resolution 5 50HS wouldn't be enough.
And if the ships carrying them are above 5000t, the fighters could use a coarser sensor and increase their range.

Such fighters don't have to rely on bulky, visible carriers:
A dozen years of maintenance life or so is cheap, a fighter-sized engineering bay will do.
Long deployment time would be somehwat expensive in terms of weight, but we don't need to match maintenance life (colonies, commercial hangars in the future)
If the fighters aren't likely to be seen, they don't need performance, months of fuel endurance and multiple systems worth of range should be achievable.

Small  fighters require considerable overhead in fire controls... currently a bit of a drawback. In the upcoming version, a sensor to match their combat range needs to be 40-200 times as big/expensive as one of them, and the matching FC 10-50 times as much. Larger ships either don't shoot back, or they spend several times as much on electronics without matching the fighters' redundancy and salvo dispersion.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2018, 07:44:31 PM »
You should rely on picket scouts to find enemy fighters. A 250-1000t picket scout is cheap and can scan pretty far in C# Aurora... or you have specialised smaller picket ships for a broader variant of scanning frequencies, or why not a combination.

I never run my main ships with their sensors on active, for the same reason blue water ships on Earth don't do it either... too easy to spot them.

Scouting and finding enemy ships for target lock is a duty for fast scouts.

My main ships only have some rudimentary sensors and don't need super long range, just enough for self defence in a pinch or as back up sensors. If ships mount "Anti-Ship Missiles" their fire controls usually outrange their sensors buy twice or triple the distance. Basically every main ship from Frigate and up house enough hangars for a few scout fighters.

Once fighters are viable as the main anti-ship arm of fleets then I rarely build ships to carry long range ASM only for medium range against picket and smaller ships/fighters in self defence. Fighters are obviously the main offensive branch at that point and carriers will become the main combat ship and other ships only there for support and escort. Destroyers that are suppose to defend the carriers would have long range anti-fighter missiles and fire-controls as well as anti-missile defences. They don't need matching active sensors out to the max range of their fire-controls, picket scouts take care of that.

A perfect operation is when the main Task-Force is never discovered and fighters take out the enemy with the help of my recon forces.

I don't see any of this really changing in C# Aurora.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2018, 01:12:33 AM »
i believe aurora C will actually favor small fighters.  The changes will make it much harder for fighters to be spotted by size 50 sensors, and its fairly easy to include sensor fighters or fast scout ships in your hangars or fleets. You'll note NPRs occasionally making use of small, very fast ships with nothing but big sensors on them, and the purpose of those is to sit at their max sensor range while being effectively impossible to retaliate against.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2018, 03:01:19 AM »
I actually think this is one of the major purposes of the change for sensors and reduced missile ranges in general.

It will now be more beneficial to scout ahead with smaller crafts and divide up your forces a bit more than before rather than just slap on a size 50 res 1, 20 and 100 sensor on one ship and see everything coming at you.

You also should look at how much easier it is to detect stuff with passive sensors as well, especially low emission things like fighters that can much easier be detected now with thermal sensors. It might actually be useful to screen a fleet with sensor frigates which also have some anti-fighter/missile weapons. These ships can be scanning passively

Size 50 sensors will now be a big luxury item since it's general performance will be much lower than many smaller sensors not to mention much more costly to research for its general effectiveness. Advanced sensors in the current Aurora version is absurdly good at finding stuff.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 03:27:18 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2018, 04:59:16 AM »
@ Jorgen_CAB: I am not worried about my fleet. Your advice should be directed against the AI, because it will need to be competent in fighter operations (quite the challenge) or become a sitting duck. Your doctrine already works... with the proposed changes it's going to work so well it's going to be boring.



Current sensor system:
Assuming equal tech, a 250t scout fighter and a 1000t scout FAC devoting the same percentage to a resolution-10 sensor (the geometric mean of their respective sizes) will  detect one another at the same range.
The FAC will have 4x the sensor range against the designed 500t target.
If the size of opposing scout craft is known and the ideal sensor resolution is chosen instead, the FAC will detect the fighter from twice the range (at 4x the expense).

C# sensor system:
If both craft devote the same percentage to a resolution10-sensor, the 250t fighter will pick up the 1000t FAC at twice the range it's detected itself.
The FAC will have twice the sensor range against the designed 500t target.
If the size of opposing scout craft is known and the ideal resolution is chosen instead, the FAC will detect the fighter at 25% longer range (at 4x the expense).



The current system seems quite balanced, all sizes from huge sensor platforms to tiny spotter craft have their use. The player has choices with interesting trade-offs, and a straightforward approach works well enough to keep the AI from being helpless.

The C# model strongly encourages tiny spotters (and probably missile combatants). The theoretical advantages available to larger vessels are very narrow, require near-perfect information about the smallest relevant enemy size, and come at a ludicrous price. Less interesting design trade-offs, good implementation becomes more important, and I don't expect the AI to be up to the challenge.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 05:01:07 AM by Iranon »
 
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2018, 05:50:48 AM »
in the current system the minutiae of balance are irrelevant because you detect everything with a big res 1... which is why the system is being changed, presumably.

The purpose of a picket ship is not to detect small ships without getting detected, it's to detect them at all, so a bigger sensor (ie on a fac) is typically better since you can see further (and use less pickets if you're trying to guard an arc or perimeter).  A fighter running res 20 actives can in theory work well for picket supression, if *also* paired with res 20 FCs, but that comes with its own hurdles and problems (namely reduced effectiveness in the strike role).  Res 20 actives are also really jacking up your EM output.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2018, 05:55:21 AM »
@ Jorgen_CAB: I am not worried about my fleet. Your advice should be directed against the AI, because it will need to be competent in fighter operations (quite the challenge) or become a sitting duck. Your doctrine already works... with the proposed changes it's going to work so well it's going to be boring.



Current sensor system:
Assuming equal tech, a 250t scout fighter and a 1000t scout FAC devoting the same percentage to a resolution-10 sensor (the geometric mean of their respective sizes) will  detect one another at the same range.
The FAC will have 4x the sensor range against the designed 500t target.
If the size of opposing scout craft is known and the ideal sensor resolution is chosen instead, the FAC will detect the fighter from twice the range (at 4x the expense).

C# sensor system:
If both craft devote the same percentage to a resolution10-sensor, the 250t fighter will pick up the 1000t FAC at twice the range it's detected itself.
The FAC will have twice the sensor range against the designed 500t target.
If the size of opposing scout craft is known and the ideal resolution is chosen instead, the FAC will detect the fighter at 25% longer range (at 4x the expense).



The current system seems quite balanced, all sizes from huge sensor platforms to tiny spotter craft have their use. The player has choices with interesting trade-offs, and a straightforward approach works well enough to keep the AI from being helpless.

The C# model strongly encourages tiny spotters (and probably missile combatants). The theoretical advantages available to larger vessels are very narrow, require near-perfect information about the smallest relevant enemy size, and come at a ludicrous price. Less interesting design trade-offs, good implementation becomes more important, and I don't expect the AI to be up to the challenge.

Are you not completely omitting the use of passive sensors now. When do you know to turn on those active sensors without exposing yourself to detection?
As soon as you turn on an active sensor you are likely to be spotted allot further away than you can see.

In general it is not harmful to have the enemy see your active sensor scouts but you must be ready to defend them or they will eventually drop like flies. That is what I will find interesting in games now... AI might have a problem with it but that is actually not that big of a problem for me.

Against the AI this type of warfare already is too effective so I don't think much will change in that regard. I don't play allot against AI in that respect and only AI are usually the spoiler races, but I see your point.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2018, 04:48:32 AM »
I am not worried about my fleet. Your advice should be directed against the AI, because it will need to be competent in fighter operations (quite the challenge) or become a sitting duck. Your doctrine already works... with the proposed changes it's going to work so well it's going to be boring.

And I presume you find the current AI challenging then since you think keeping it challenging is an important consideration?

IMO the game should be focused on delivering a good balance when all empires are player controlled, and AI should be a lower priority after "best effort", to work mainly as an introduction to new players until they can start to play the game "for real" which means RP:ing all sides themself. I do know alot of veteran players also enjoy playing vs the AI, but then you are aware of their shortcomings and RP to not exploit them instead, which is a similar thing.


And getting AI to use smaller sensor scouts along threat vectors doesn't seem that challenging compared to other things it would be nice if the AI could do like better buildup strategies / ship design or coordinating ground invasions ( with the new C# ground mechanics ).
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 04:50:14 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2018, 06:16:57 AM »
I agree with Alex... the game is mostly fun when you either play with other people or simply RP several factions at the same time, allot more interesting. Even if you can't play against your self you should still play the game as if the AI knows it stuff and simply not directly exploit its short comings.

With that I don't mean the AI could be made better and smarter, if that is possible I would be all for it.

If the size of opposing scout craft is known and the ideal sensor resolution is chosen instead, the FAC will detect the fighter from twice the range (at 4x the expense).

This is what I think is the thing that you can't rely on. If the world technology functioned the way that it does in Aurora a navy would never build ships to one set standard size so there are no perfect sensors and fire-controls to use. A navy could easily have a mix of scout crafts ranging from anywhere at 200-2500t, how would you know what type of scout you are up against before scanning it?!?

Another thing is... how much forces are you willing to risk exposing for taking out a lone scout craft when you have no idea of what other enemy forces are in the vicinity? Or how do you know it is alone before you put actual sensors on it? Perhaps it is a rather powerful destroyer flotilla whose specialty is to engage fighter/corvette class ships using a combination of interceptors and long range anti-fighter craft missiles. How do you know before hand what sensors/weapons the enemy ships in the vicinity will possess?

In my opinion the game will become richer for having more option in regards to sensor size and making both large and small ships viable in different ways.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 06:23:59 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2018, 06:31:58 AM »
Yeah. Something else to keep in mind is that alot of systems like Engines, Shields, Turrets, Command bonus and Powerplants got changed scaling to favor efficiency for larger ships in C# as well, so it's hard to judge how the actual balance will end up is quite tricky before playing it.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2018, 10:05:50 AM »
@ TheDeadlyShoe: In the current version, a big res1 ensures nothing small will slip in, but is easily outranged by coarser sensors of modest size. In C#, a dummy craft surrounded by a formation of sensor fighters adds some novelty, but that solution will be much more dominant and cheaper. For initial contact, a ring of coverage is sufficient. Once contact is made, small craft are better at maintaining coverage without exposing themselves.

Long strike range to large ships isn't necessary, the main obstacle will be small scout craft if present. Even on tiny fightes, fitting dual fire controls to attack large assets from outside their range is a neglegible investment... compared to the huge sensors/FCs of exactly the right resolution those would need to fight back. Simply building variants with differrent resolutions seems more expedient though.



@ Jorgen_CAB: I was focusing on actives for now, as those determine who can actually shoot at whom. Emissions control adds some complex and interesting considerations, but by and large I also see mostly advantages for relatively smaller craft (for a given total expense).


This is what I think is the thing that you can't rely on. If the world technology functioned the way that it does in Aurora a navy would never build ships to one set standard size so there are no perfect sensors and fire-controls to use. A navy could easily have a mix of scout crafts ranging from anywhere at 200-2500t, how would you know what type of scout you are up against before scanning it?!?
Hitting that precise spot is what getting a small advantage with a somewhat larger craft depends on, and just missing it means larger craft will be at a considerable disadvantage despite spending several times as many resources. Without prior information and with sensible assumptions, smaller is better.

Quote
Another thing is... how much forces are you willing to risk exposing for taking out a lone scout craft when you have no idea of what other enemy forces are in the vicinity? Or how do you know it is alone before you put actual sensors on it? Perhaps it is a rather powerful destroyer flotilla whose specialty is to engage fighter/corvette class ships using a combination of interceptors and long range anti-fighter craft missiles. How do you know before hand what sensors/weapons the enemy ships in the vicinity will possess?
The risks seem rather small. Something needs to provide their active sensor lock, and small fighters are very difficult to outrange... they can afford to keep their actives on if armed variants are nearby for some recon in force (trying to be sneaky is also an option, and small fighters are good at that too. My point is that they don't even have to be cautious). Those hypothetical destroyers would have to be very specialised to have a range advantage, with a ludicrously expensive electronics suite, and even then they can throw it away by getting the resolution slightly wrong ,e.g. looking for 250t fighters when they are 150t.

Quote
In my opinion the game will become richer for having more option in regards to sensor size and making both large and small ships viable in different ways.
Agreed in principle... only that's what we have at the moment! I find all sizes quite viable. The proposed solution encourages more one-dimensional gameplay, even though I suppose the natural appoach is fiddly and looks pretty on the map.



@ alex_brunius: Considering the freedom we have... I find Aurora surprisingly robust, single- or multi-player. Playing around many tacit assumptions is possible and allows trivialising some challenges, but often enough you can prod the mechanics with a sharp stick and find an interesting niche rather than something broken. I find this very pleasing.
Some of the new/changed mechanics look a lot more fragile or not quite balanced though, encouraging shortcuts formerly useful in niche as a default. Regrettably if those essentially play around something that was supposed to become more fleshed-out.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2018, 04:44:03 PM »
The problem with ship size is that a fleet might have many differing scouts and ship classes so have specific sensors for specific ships will be hard to do. So of course going smaller is better but in C# Aurora your are severely limited at what range a big small resolution sensor can have you also need to consider how many research resources you will put into all your different sensor controls.

I could see a destroyer flotilla having allot of sensor scouts and interceptor craft in addition to their long range fire controls. A large ship usually only need one perhaps two fire-controls to fire at fighter crafts since they can easily alternate their targeting. These ships don't need to have active sensors to cover the fighters, they will have scouts and interceptors for that. If your fighters are carrying mainly low resolution sensors you are probably not even going to spot the destroyers before their sensor scouts spot you. If you carry high resolution sensors it depends when you activate them, if too far out trying to find a target your are likely going to be spotted since they use tremendously high EM ratings.

This is usually how my fights go in VB Aurora at mid level technology where fighters rule supreme and ships are mainly their to support them. The Destroyers are basically for anti-missile/fighter platforms with decent amount of Hangars as well. These ships will work even better in C# Aurora and be much more important, they are not about knocking out enemy capital ships even if they can do decent amount of damage at medium distance, but that should be a rare thing.

I don't see how yo would ever blindly send a fighter group in to attack a target without knowing what other forces are in the vicinity... what if what you send them at is a lone fast scout with back up ready to maul that fighter group nearby. Are your fighters equipped with fire-controls to target corvettes/fighters or regular ships?

I usually divide my fighters into Interceptors, Multi-Role and Bombers.

Interceptors are those whose role is to attack fighters/corvettes at medium to short missile distance or that can be fitted with beam weapons, but only a rare few are.

Multi-Role carry slightly larger missiles and some smaller and can engage fighters at short distance and ships at medium to long range. These are mainly good at bolster the fleets anti-scout perimeter around a fleet since they are perfectly good at attacking smaller ships and defend against enemy strike/bomber crafts and to some degree engage interceptors.

Bombers are fighters whose job it is to attack enemy ships only.

The important thing in an environment where you don't know where the enemy main forces are you will be flying blind trying your hardest to engage and destroy the enemy scouts so you can find the enemy fleet before they find you. In these type of environment and if forces are fairly even the one that spot the other firs will have a huge advantage.

And I'm talking about none AI strategies here because the AI will never come near as sophisticated as that.

What I try to say is that sending a full strike force against an unknown target can be a huge mistake in this environment. I don't doubt for a second that fighters and smaller ships will become more important in the scouting role, that is a good change. It will however not make larger ships useless.

You also don't want to over engineer your fighters in an environment where you don't have a significant tech advantage. Range and deployment time will sacrifice speed, weapons and sensors.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 04:50:03 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2018, 01:16:02 AM »
I'd encourage a close look at the new sensor range table and consider what ranges ships of various size can pick up others. Obviously not restricting this just to perfect sensor matches.

Will your missile destroyers sport size 10+ fire controls of the right resolution to have adequate range to enemy fighters?
Will your scouts/interceptors have sensors/FCs very close to the ideal resolution (1 and 5 won't do if 3 is needed)?
Will your scouts have a high percentage of sensors (which pretty much rules out performance; endurance is cheap)?
All of these need to be answered with "yes" for this to work.

You are aware of the advantages of small sensor footprint in the current version. What you seem to be missing is how in the future, any larger ships expected to fight them need to be just as ruthlessly optimised for range:footprint ratio as the fighters themselves. If the destroyers have one huge FC and a modest missile armament and absolutely no frills, they might work (being hugely expensive for the capability and still being vulnerablet to having their spotters are shot down before their own missiles arrive). With several fire controls, a decent missile loadout respective to FC tonnage, a hangar and other niceties, the size of fire controls needed to match fighter sensor range to them balloons, driving up the mass of the rest you want etc. The tyranny of the sensor equation... you can have an advantage at large size, but it's hugely expensive.

Unless facing an almost-ideal counter build, a concentration of small fighters with various resolution sensors (cost is no issue. Fighters don't require retooling, and half a dozen different 1.2HS sensors for 3HS fighters or so are no more expensive than the sensor for a single FAC) are very likely to see any enemy before they are seen, both considering actives vs. actives and a mutual emissions control scenario.

For scouting purposes when area coverage is desired rather than a concentrated fleet, a ring of sensor fighters (in a formation around a central task group; maybe the main strike group, maybe a single dummy craft) would do that very well with rather limited investment for the capability.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2018, 02:59:27 AM »
Will your missile destroyers sport size 10+ fire controls of the right resolution to have adequate range to enemy fighters?
Will your scouts/interceptors have sensors/FCs very close to the ideal resolution (1 and 5 won't do if 3 is needed)?
Will your scouts have a high percentage of sensors (which pretty much rules out performance; endurance is cheap)?
All of these need to be answered with "yes" for this to work.

Or you can just put a Cloaking Device on you Anti Fighter DDs instead ( which the fighters themself can't use since they are too small ), and use ECCM/ECM and it auto-wins the active sensor "race" of who can target it's opponent at longest range...


Your questions also work both ways btw: Will the Fighters have all of the above (Specially FCs of sufficient size and optimal resolution) to be able to target Anti-Fighter DDs of unknown tonnage at good range even if they are not using cloak?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 03:02:49 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2018, 04:15:00 AM »
@Iranon

Roughly size 8 res 5 are equal to a size 1 res 100 sensor. Given that a destroyer can easily be 20-40 times the size of fighter that is not really being innefiecient from a resource perspective. Especially when a larger ship can have deep magazines to sustain their defensive effort.

I know that fighters can be smaller than 250t, but they are not great at long range bombing. Comparison above are done because those are the sensor example Steve have given. Really small fighters work best as interceptors.

The thing will rather be at what range will you spot the ships and be able to fire on them at the same time?

The thing is that you must defeat the fighter/scout screen first and such destroyers could be designed to support the screen with long distance missiles, in addition to interceptor crafts.

You will usually end up in a situation where you need to find the ship before you can fire on them in the first place.

If you design a destroyer escort to defend against fighter and enemy missiles you need to do it properly.

You will be able to design bombers with a longer range but that is not the issue. These ships are suppose to engage in the scouting and phase. Against long range bombers they will need to defend with AMM.

You have to remember that you are not just up aggaint one type of ship but a multitude of ship's and fighters in a combined arms type fleet. Comparing optimal sensors ranges against each other will become a moot point at that stage.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 04:43:26 AM by Jorgen_CAB »