Author Topic: Forward jump point defense  (Read 556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 366
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Forward jump point defense
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2017, 04:39:33 PM »
Late game, once agility tech makes point defense so much more effective, and jump engine tech makes squadrons jump further from the jump point, conventional warp point defense becomes a lot more difficult.

However, this period is also likely to see a transition to point blank missile designs, switching from long ranged missiles for fleet battles to ones that arrive at their targets in 5 seconds, or at least only allow minimal AMM engagement time.  And a beam heavy forward defense fleet could get picked apart under those conditions.

Also, building slow beam ships for forward defense would work against AI, but would be suicidal against a player who could send in BOARDING PODS from 5 second flight time.

Where the main threat is long ranged missile bombardment, however, the difference between the flight time of the missiles and the time it takes to transit offers significant tactical options that do not otherwise exist for a forward jump point defense.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 126
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Forward jump point defense
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2017, 03:16:38 AM »
For beam defense, the difference is how fast a ship can kill another at point blank, 10,000km range vs how fast it can do so at whatever the jump distance a squadron can get from the jump point, plus how far they can go in 5 seconds.

There is also an effect on design, as a ship designed anticipating that the enemy will have to cross within 10,000 to achieve its objective is a bit different from one expecting its first and possibly only fire will be at 100,000km.

I haven't done the math, but I suspect a beam ship can kill an equal sized ship in 5 seconds at 10,000 km, possibly more than one, but it might take as much as a minute at 100,000km.

A ship designed to pursue an enemy after transit in order to stay in range has a lot more space devoted to engines than a ship that only has to be able to transit in and out of a jump point with a squadron.

Huh, I'd forgotten until now, but I've actually done something like this. While engaging on the far side of the jump point was essential, it only made victory "barely possible" - nowhere near "easy". The big problem is that they can jump the instant they reach the JP, so you never get that ideal point-blank shot at them. Thus if they have sufficiently extreme speed compared to your engagement range, your options are extremely limited (and if the target had been shooting back, I'd really have been in a pickle).
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Sandy

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 366
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Forward jump point defense
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2017, 03:35:24 AM »
That sounds like a pretty cool set of battles, DIT_grue, got any more stuff like that somewhere?
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 577
  • Thanked: 29 times
    • View Profile
Re: Forward jump point defense
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2017, 11:24:17 AM »
As attacker you could time a wave of missiles to arrive to the JP together with your beam ships. Interesting choices for the defender.

Also if the attacker has enough tech advantage it might be difficult to spot fast missiles early enough that you have time to withdraw behind the JP, depending on crew training etc of course.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 366
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Forward jump point defense
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2017, 03:15:19 PM »
Yes indeed, I mentioned that a lot of the tactical options are only available if the defender has at least 2 minute warning on missiles, which is a good deal.

Anything big enough to detect them at that range is going to be an enormous target.  But if all the defenders need is warning, not targeting, maybe a huge line of buoys with resolution 1 active sensors could work.  That would be a lot of magazine space, even if the buoys are cheap, and it would need to be something you could automate, because doing 100+ waypoints by hand would be ridiculous.

Also, the buoys would have to have enough reach to see a fast missile crossing its sensor reach, which would mean you need a lot of overlap.

For buoy design, you can apparently get ridiculous duration if you get a .1 msp missile drive with max fuel efficiency.

Still, if you are designing a trap for a higher tech (spoiler), and have the time to prepare and know the approximate vector the (spoiler) is going to approach the warp point, a buoy early warning net might work, while being hard to detect until the enemy got within its own AMM range.  And vs (spoilers), if you can get them to waste their ammo on buoys, GREAT!

Normally, I would argue for one big sensor, as a sensor 10x as big would cover 10x the range, so 10 little sensors in a line would only cover 60 degrees of arc.  But if you want your sensor ships to be able to withdraw as well from a big wave, while still have info about other incoming waves, that is a problem.  If you have high confidence about the vector the AI is coming in on, a 20 degree arc might be sufficient for tactical advantage.  If you are roleplaying a race that has a high sensitivity to casualties in offensive operations, especially vs (spoilers) that have ripped apart a fleet or two, might be a fun approach.

IF you can come up with a minelaying missile deployment technique that doesn't drive you bonkers.  Getting a buoy that can detect missiles across a 5 second flight time might be too big to be usefully deployed, however.  I would do some designs, but Aurora is currently borked, possibly because there is something wrong with my computer, or several things.  5-seconds would be enough for a warning system, as the buoy line would at least detect missiles moving past it, if there were decent overlap.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 253
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Forward jump point defense
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2017, 03:41:09 PM »
For buoy design, you can apparently get ridiculous duration if you get a .1 msp missile drive with max fuel efficiency.

I thought buoys were indefinite if they didn't have engines now? They used to need reactors, but that got removed with the engine change. I really need to use stuff likes mines more often.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 366
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Forward jump point defense
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2017, 03:54:49 PM »
I am just going by what I was able to do before Aurora packed up on me.  Geosurvey drones include an estimate of how many survey point they can do, based on the drone's endurance, which seems to be based on having an engine.  The amount of survey points they can do without an engine is zero, and it seems to be based completely on the fuel consumption time of their engine times their Geosurvey sensor points.

Given that you can get multiple years of endurance for .2 MSP (depending on your fuel efficiency tech), it seems a small cost when the sensor part of the buoy is likely to be in excess of 5 MSP.

I did notice something hinky.  Low tech missiles seem to have speeds locked to multiples of 100km/s.  I had a missile design that jumped from 0 km/s to 100 km/s with a couple tweaks, and another that was 200 km/s, I haven't done much experimenting yet.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51