Sensor buoy design

[Michael Sandy (OP)]

Do people find it practical to build sensor buoys to monitor warp points?  I have been puzzling over what kind of design priorities there were for them.

First, the sensor has to have range to cover any transit, and detect any ship capable of surveying.

Second, it needs to have endurance so that you don't have to send a ship out to replace it.

Third, it needs to be of small enough size or distant enough from the warp point that it will not generally be discovered by ships that pass through.

Fourth, it needs to be cheap enough to be used everywhere.

It is the third criteria which seems to cause the hang ups.  If an invading fleet has anti-missile missiles, it can be counted on to have a resolution 1 sensor that can reach over a million km.

So this suggests that you can't have one sensor buoy design meet all of those tests.  So having a buoy that can cover the warp point and detect anything is going to be fairly myopic, and therefore close to the warp point.  But a buoy that is used to track the entry of capital ships, with a resolution 60 or so, can have much more range and conceivably escape detection.

I am also curious about Captor mine designs.  The larger the mine, the better the sensor, and the less cost per submunition to get a given range sensor trigger.  But that larger mine is also easier to detect, and that range allows an invader to get their sensors up or jump back through the warp point.

For myself, I am dubious about how effective Captor mines are in a warp point defense, as an invader could send in a big noisy ship to trigger their launch, and then just slip back through the warp point.  But if you use them in open space, you really need as much range as possible, which makes the larger mines more economical.

[Starmantle]

I think your problem is in the assumption in #3 there.  If a cheap buoy at a jump point detects an enemy transit, identifies it, and is destroyed, that's a mission success: you now know the disposition of the enemy and they've learned nothing useful about you.  You can now retreat or send in a fleet, or whatever you think is an appropriate response.

Not that it wouldn't be more useful if the enemy missed them somehow.  That's worth exploring!

Mines are good for warp points and la grange points only, really.  That and maybe mining jump survey points and planets to harass enemy survey operations.  Jump points are all I've used them for, though.

It's just a harassing tactic, though.  They all target the first ship unless you do some fancy staggering. 

[83athom]

I generally design my buoys to anywhere between 20 and 50. Most of that is put into sensors and reactors (auto). I may put some ECM or armor on it, just for RP, in order to improve the time it can see the enemy.

[DIT_grue]

Second, it needs to have endurance so that you don't have to send a ship out to replace it.

Third, it needs to be of small enough size or distant enough from the warp point that it will not generally be discovered by ships that pass through.

Like Starmantle, I find your third specification needless for the role, a clear example of feature creep. But the second one is just meaningless - since the big engine changes, buoy endurance is automatically infinite:

Missile sensors must be powered. The power requirement for any sensor is equal to its 20% of the sensor strength. So one missile size point (MSP = 1/20th of a HS) allocated to an EM Sensor using a base EM sensor strength of 8 would result in an EM sensor strength of 0.4 (8/20). This would require a reactor with a power output of 0.08 (0.4/5). The reactor space is allocated automatically but displayed as if it was added by the player. Ship-based sensors do not require reactors as their needs can be met from the general power generation of the ship. On a per HS basis, passive sensors are much less powerful than active sensors at the same tech level, which means missiles will require less reactor space per MSP of passive sensors compared to active sensors.

There is no longer a separate 'buoy' category but you can create the same effect by designing a missile with sensors and no engine. The necessary reactor space will be added automatically. Missile reactors have unlimited endurance so there will no longer be a need to replace buoys every few years. While unlimited endurance is unrealistic, modern naval reactors have a service life measured in decades so this is a compromise between realism and a desire to reduce micromanagement. I may add some form of failure during very long term deployment - a failing IFF system on a mine could be entertaining - but I haven't decided yet.

[Michael Sandy (OP)]

I have been away for a few years, obviously I missed some major changes.

So that brings up a wish list of things you could program a captor mine to do.

Could you have it launch a sensor equipped missile that maintained a particular range and bearing to a target?  Like an automatic spidey tracer.  Have a long endurance fairly slow missile that can stay on station for the whole missile engagement, or a set of them, some with resolution 50-100 or so, for keeping tabs on the enemy fleet, and some with resolution 1, to detect when a missile wave passes by.

I like the "Crybaby" drone mentioned in another thread.  A device to lure an enemy ship somewhere it can be destroyed or disabled and then salvaged, in order to use deviousness to make up for tech disadvantages.

[83athom]

Could you have it launch a sensor equipped missile that maintained a particular range and bearing to a target?  Like an automatic spidey tracer.

No.

Have a long endurance fairly slow missile that can stay on station for the whole missile engagement, or a set of them, some with resolution 50-100 or so, for keeping tabs on the enemy fleet, and some with resolution 1, to detect when a missile wave passes by.

Yes.

I like the "Crybaby" drone mentioned in another thread.  A device to lure an enemy ship somewhere it can be destroyed or disabled and then salvaged, in order to use deviousness to make up for tech disadvantages.

It doesn't quite work like that.