Narrowband Active Sensors

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

One of the things about Aurora gameplay that has concerned me a little lately is the ability of fighters and, to a lesser extent, FACs to launch missiles from outside enemy sensor range with almost no chance of detection. This gives them an inherent invulnerability that I believe creates an significant imbalance in favour of small craft. While I want an emphasis on carriers, fighters and FACs to be a viable fleet doctrine, I don't want it to be the obvious best fleet doctrine. The underlying problem is that the active sensor model, while it works very well in many respects, makes detection of very small targets difficult at anything but minimal ranges. This was fixed for missiles by the introduction of the zero resolution sensor and I think the missile detection model works very well. Unlike missiles, which have to reach point blank range, FACs and fighters can launch an attack without even coming close to the likely detection range of a hostile ship so they are almost never in any real danger of counter-attack. Aurora's combat model is similar in may respects to modern naval warfare and I tend to use that as my real-world comparison. In the real world, fighters and fast attack craft are a danger to large warships but they are also vulnerable to detection and counter-attack at reasonable ranges. I have decided I need to create an analagous situation in Aurora. Therefore I am introducing narrowband active sensors in v5.20.

All active sensors and fire control will be divided into broadband and narrowband sensors. The existing sensor model is the broadband version, so every Aurora sensor created up to this point is a broadband sensor and will continue to work in exactly the same way. A narrowband sensor is designed in the same way, except for changing the broadband/narrrowband option, but can only detect objects (such as ships, shipyards, mineral packets, etc.) that have a size between the sensor resolution and the sensor resolution +5. In other words, a narrowband sensor with a resolution of 100 can only detect targets with a size of between 100 and 105. Anything outside that range is totally invisible to the sensor. To compensate, a narrowband sensor has five times the range of a broadband sensor. The only restriction is that resolution 2 is the lowest resolution for a broadband sensor. Resolution 1 is already handled by the resolution zero mode. For the purposes of consistency, I may make resolution zero mode a narrowband sensor that operates from 0.01 to 1.

While the new narrowband mode will not be that useful for larger resolutions, it will be very useful for low resolution ranges such as 15-20 or 3-8. As an example, here is a comparison between broadband and narrowband sensors designed to detect fighters. They are both size 10 and use active sensor 21/EM 11 tech. As you can use, the first one is not really very useful but the second gives the ship a reasonable detection range against fighters. The narrowband sensor won't be able to detect anything else though except fighters of 200 tons to 450 tons. Fire controls also have broadband and narrowband options to you can still match fire controls to active sensors.

Code: [Select]

Broadband Sensor
Active Sensor Strength: 210   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 10 HS    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 4    Maximum Range: 9,240,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 210    Crew: 50

Code: [Select]

Narrowband Sensor
Active Sensor Strength: 210   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 10 HS    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 4 to 9    Maximum Range: 46,200,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 210    Crew: 50FACs will also be easier to detect, without having to use huge sensors. In fact, a secondary active sensor designed to detect FACs might be a regular feature on larger warships. Here is a size 3 FAC-detection sensor using the same tech level as above. Remember it won't be able to detect anything outside the 750 ton to 1000 ton range.

Code: [Select]

FAC Detector
Active Sensor Strength: 63   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 3 HS    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 15 to 20    Maximum Range: 51,975,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 63    Crew: 15Obviously these changes will make fighters and FACs a lot easier to detect and target. Their speed will provide a defence but I am also going to look at a chaff/flares equivalent to add some survivability. This should provide a more interesting challenge than their current invulnerability.

Steve

[welchbloke]

I can appreciate the problem and your solution does rebalance the dynamic; however, the comparision with modern radars makes me uncomfortable as there is no similar system in existance in the modern world.  To improve detection of small targets at longer range using the same technological bnaseline as a 'normal' surveillance sensor would normally mean that the radar would stare at a certain section of sky, improving integration time and power on target and leading to a marked improvement in probability of detection and continuity of tracking.  
What I trying to say is that I would have preferred a sensor that improves detection ranges for small targets, but instead of only detecting a small range of target sizes, the sensor can only search a given volume of space every few minutes.  This would probably be a few degrees of coverage, so the downside would be a requiirement for multiple sensors bringing with it a degree of management to set up search sectors.

[dooots]

Nice to see fighters wont be invincible now.  Guess I'll need an anti-fighter fighter/fac now well if fighters move to a longer ranged missile to help counter anti-fighter missiles.  Might be able to make some kind of mirv, which brings up the question of will missiles be able to use narrowband sensors?

[lastverb]

is it possible to make narrowband ranges based on tech, lets say starting at 3 up to 10 points resolution range?
It would be possible but I don't want to make narrowband sensors too flexible.

Steve

[UnLimiTeD]

Would probably be nice.

For the purposes of consistency, I may make resolution zero mode a narrowband sensor that operates from 0.01 to 1.

Shouldn't missiles of size 50+ by bigger than one hull size?

I like the change, however I don't think I'm actually going to use it, I prefer a size 50 R20 active on a sensor ship and thats all the coverage I need.

[symon]

I'm veering towards agreeing with Welchbloke here. It seem a little too close to a 'fighters are special' approach, that so far Aurora has avoided. Not as bad as Starfire2 and assault movement, but I'm a little uncomfortable.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I'm veering towards agreeing with Welchbloke here. It seem a little too close to a 'fighters are special' approach, that so far Aurora has avoided. Not as bad as Starfire2 and assault movement, but I'm a little uncomfortable.

It's not really a fighters are special approach as you can use narrowband sensors at any resolution. If the precursor DDs are all 6000 tons, you can set up a narrowband sensor that works for 6000 tons as well. Besides, the current resolution zero sensor is already using the narrowband approach. A missile that is only 0.05 HS can still be detected at max range by a resolution 1.00 sensor, when that resolution 1.00 sensor should really only detect it at 0.0025 of max range if it followed the normal missile rules. The other alternative to narrowband sensors is to redo the whole sensor resolution vs target size system so that missiles, fighters and FAC can be detected at reasonable ranges by normal sensors. That would actually be better if  I could figure out a way to handle it without removing the whole concept of sensors that are specialised for different target size. I am open to suggestions

Steve

[Caplin]

Hi,
Speaking as someone who likes the current sensor mechanics, I would be in favor of narrowband sensors sacrificing detection granularity for range, as currently seems to be the case.
It doesn't imply to me that fighters are special so much as that there is yet another option for designing ships, should you choose to use it.
I would rather not see the whole sensor resolution system gutted entirely.
Best and thanks,
Zack.

[Brian Neumann]

I like the idea of the narrowband sensors also.  Currently it is almost impossible to directly target a fighter from a ship at the ranges that the fighter is commonly firing from.  Most fighters with even fairly low tech can fire from around 15m km range.  This does assume a dedicated sensor fighter, but nothing else.  Even moderate tech active sensors however would have to be huge to spot them at this range.  (Maybe a size 20 sensor)  That size sensor is not only expensive to reasearch and build, but is also going to be in dedicated scout ships in all likelyhood.  This means that a little pre-planning and targeting will tend to leave a fleet without the means to counter a fighter strike.

With the new model it will be posible to target them at longer ranges, and make the range at which they fire from a juggling act once again.  Do they press in to fire a shorter range missile, or do they play it safe and fire a long range missile to stay out of the defensive fire envelope?

Brian

[IanD]

I prefer a size 50 R20 active on a sensor ship and thats all the coverage I need.

That is my usual approach as well.

is the ability of fighters and, to a lesser extent, FACs to launch missiles from outside enemy sensor range with almost no chance of detection.

Having said that it is sometimes the only chance a low tech player has of surviving.

One problem with yet more search sensors is that it eats into the weapons load of early tech warships, you would probably still need a dedicated sensor ship anyway. Would an alternative be to increase the range at which small craft can be detected as the EM component increases? My warships already tend to carry four search sensors to cover Missiles, fighters, FACs and warships of approximately 5000 tonnes plus. You would now have the spectre of a high tech warship being invulnerable to low tech opponents.

Regards

[Caplin]

Hi,
From my point of view at least, the suggestion of increasing small craft detection range specifically doesn't make much sense.  I love Aurora primarily because its rules display a remarkable consistency and internal logic, even if that logic is dependent
on "magical" elements.  I wouldn't want to see that logic strained overmuch.  A narrowband sensor I can believe, but an increase in the detection range for one particular type of ship with the increase in technology of an unrelated component I find a bit
harder to swallow.
I wouldn't think high tech ships would be made invulnerable by this addition, but my perspective is biased, never having engaged in "real" combat before.
Just my two cents.
Best,
Zack.

[UnLimiTeD]

Why would a high tech ship even bother.
With a techadvantage of just two levels, your ships are basically impervious to small missile fire thanks to superior AM defenses and shielding.
I like the proposed change, no need to make it more complicated.

[Brian Neumann]

Why would a high tech ship even bother.
With a techadvantage of just two levels, your ships are basically impervious to small missile fire thanks to superior AM defenses and shielding.
I like the proposed change, no need to make it more complicated.

Not quite true.  If you have enough missiles coming in they can still do a lot of damage.  Even the best active defense can be overwhelmed by numbers, and fighters are the easiest way to get those numbers quickly.  In addition while your shields and armour is going to be significantly better at that sort of a tech advantage, planet based defenses are still going to be a problem.  Just in the number of missiles that can easily be based on the planet.

Brian

[dooots]

The other alternative to narrowband sensors is to redo the whole sensor resolution vs target size system so that missiles, fighters and FAC can be detected at reasonable ranges by normal sensors. That would actually be better if  I could figure out a way to handle it without removing the whole concept of sensors that are specialised for different target size. I am open to suggestions

Steve

The only option I can think of is to add an early warning sensor that like narrowband sensors would have longer range but instead of an upper limit on target size they would not be able to be used for getting a missile lock.  The player can now make an early warning sensor to see fighters/facs before they can fire.  You can then double the range of the broadband sensor you posted earlier.  It's now fairly easy to counter fighter's armed with small short range missiles but fighters using standard anti-ship missiles would require a fairly large sensor.  This large sensor could be used for both anti-fighter and anti-ship roles but you can do that now if your missiles only have a range of about 40-50 mkm.

But honestly I'm fine with the narrowband sensors even if they do feel a bit specialized for fighters.

[Andrew]

A possible idea if we consider that the active grav sensors actually detect the ships drive field rather than the ship itself, then perhaps fighter engines cause a ship to be more easily detectible so for detection purposes it is treated as a larger size catagory, the same but to a lesser degree for gunboats. As both of these engines create a stronger drife field, you could continue it and have commercial engined ships with a lighlty smaller size rating for detection purposes than military engined ships. It would make fighters easier to detect by changing the nature of fighter engines rather than trying to explain the longer range of some sensors.
Although I have no real problem with the original idea.