design vs AI compared to design vs Players

[Jorgen_CAB]

The problem with what you just described is that efficiency is completely worthless in and of itself... it is all about the logistics, research and economy supporting the fleet and how it comes to be in an organic way.

The carrier and fighters need way less research and the carrier are going to be way cheaper and thus faster to build as well, easier to upgrade and need much less upgrading at all. You will have these ships over a vast period of time and continuously upgrade them. I also fail to see why a carrier would be slower than a missile ship... I mean this is all down to operational doctrines. Slower engines also mean better fuel economy and cheaper engines thus cheaper ships and less research to design them.
You also have to factor in that it is way easier to redesign your fighter/FAC fleet based on intelligence of the enemy than it is to upgrade sensors, fire controls and weapons on large ships. Both from an engineering and research perspective... this is really an important strategic consideration.

You then have the scouting war, who will have the  most efficient scouting force. If the missile ships lack in this area they will have a hard time even locating the carrier force... everything is not always about who have the most missiles to space ratio, I would say that is a minor thing as a whole.

In my experience it is all about the large salvo to overwhelm enemy point defenses. Regular missile launchers simply don't cut it against a combined AMM and PD protected battle-group of any relevant size. Sustaining en engagement over a long time is just wasting money and resources... if the initial attack is too weak you brought too little fire power and it is time to think about a tactical withdrawal to rethink your strategies.

Hands down the strength of size of a ship is defense not attack... small platforms are hands down the best attacking platform per tonnage no matter what weapon you stick on them. They obviously are not great for beam fire combat because that endangers them being so frail.

This is the problem I see with just looking at the numbers and not the total chain from miners taking minerals out of the ground to firing the missiles at the enemy and how everything work together as one piece. You would never build a good offensive fleet to begin with if you did not expect it to be able to perform, you would mainly have to stick to defensive tactics otherwise. You need to use strategy and economy to defeat the opponent not to mention intelligence.


I probably also look more closely at what C# Aurora will bring where fuel economy, sensors and missile ranges are way different from VB6 Aurora... I can't even play VB6 Aurora anymore because of all the good changes coming to C# Aurora, I play other games in the mean time.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I also wonder what you mean about blitzing through enemy space... how would that work against a human opponent if you leave your supply and logistical support ships behind who are not going to be even close to as fast as your warships, unless you over engineer them too?!?

Is it not reckless to blitz though unknown territory in a game such as Aurora... one misstep can easily get your entire fleet wiped out rather cheaply from some hidden base somewhere.

If you don't bring any troops and toops ships you will have to basically bypass defended planets and military bases, eventually you run out of gas and then what. I do understand that playing against the AI this work really well... but against a human opponent that really tries to build up a good economy and don't waste resources on over engineered military ships and who have a good intelligence network to monitor your moves. Bum-rushing into unknown territory is a HUGE risk.

In my world a large carrier is an offensive weapon only used if and when I need to conduct offensive operations. If there was an aggressive neighbor I would have to build up a military presence to defend that area with mainly defensive assets and some mobile fast moving reaction forces. The type of ships would entirely depend on the situation and my intelligence of the opponent.

We simply can't compare two ships devoid of everything around them to support them and what you do with them, the situation and WHY you have them. This is why I hate videos on Youtube that rank and compare different tanks and who is the best... the type of gun and armor is completely irrelevant to the overall picture... no one intentionally fight a fair fight, that is stupid.

[Jorgen_CAB]

One more thing I though off regarding FC versus active scanning... since I rather look at C# Aurora than VB6 Aurora.

In C# Aurora the sensor model is way different and if FC still have three times the range then you will NEVER EVER be able to counter them with one single active sensor unless you have a serious tech advantage and can afford the massive amount or RP to invest in size 50 sensors suites.

In C# if a Res 5 size 50 sensor give you a coverage of roughly 100m km you could match that with a size 1 FC for a resolution of 100 which have a range of roughly 120m km, you could probably lower the size of that FC to almost 0.6 or something and still be close. Given the huge discrepancy in logistical cost of these things its hard to not understand how wasteful such a huge specific sensor would be to your economy. In VB6 Aurora a size 50 res 5 at the same tech level would reach out to 260m km and you wold need a size 4 FC to cover that distance and more, the problem would be more one of missile range in that case.

I'm not saying that such a sensor can become useful at some stage, but you probably need a very high tech level to begin with and probably also be more advanced than your adversary.

In C# you will be relying allot more on scouts and smaller task-forces to protect your scouting elements. No scouts means you become almost blind.

[Steve Walmsley]

In C# Aurora the sensor model is way different and if FC still have three times the range...

Missile fire controls now have double the range of an equivalent active sensor.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Thanks... that seem a bit more sensible to be honest... a 0.6 res 100 FC should perhaps not be the same range as a size 50 res 5. There still is a considerable difference in range for a small FC versus scanning equipment.

[chrislocke2000]

I've played a long campaign with two players races, one using large (size 16) multi stage missiles and one using fighters. Both have clear pros and cons.

For the fighter users I've lost complete squadrons of earlier stage fighters to precursors as the ECM has been such they had had to get into AMM range (35m ish) to launch and have been slaughtered as a result. Also whilst later versions have been strong against other opponents the time and effort to replace fighters with new models is a huge investment not just in build time but also in training.

For the big missile launcher race they have had great success with slow firing heavy saturation missile waves with high numbers of small (size 2) secondary warheads. They have lost a reasonable number of missiles to targets changing course and moving out of range and also to having the main missile shot down before its reached separation range. However with new tech its been very easy to upgrade those missiles which have then been equally easy to deploy to older ships making them remain very effective for longer periods. The other point to note is its one thing to detect and fire on the larger missiles but its quite another to get your AMMs to then reach and destroy the large missiles before separation - I've regularly seen hostiles waste large numbers of AMMs shooting down the larger missiles that have already deployed whilst the smaller, still undetected sub munitions, have made it further inside their firing range.

All in all then I see pros and cons on both and no clear winner which to me means there is good enjoyable balance in the two strategies.

[Garfunkel]

I'll have to write that down, sounds like a great way to differentiate player races.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I've played a long campaign with two players races, one using large (size 16) multi stage missiles and one using fighters. Both have clear pros and cons.

For the fighter users I've lost complete squadrons of earlier stage fighters to precursors as the ECM has been such they had had to get into AMM range (35m ish) to launch and have been slaughtered as a result. Also whilst later versions have been strong against other opponents the time and effort to replace fighters with new models is a huge investment not just in build time but also in training.

For the big missile launcher race they have had great success with slow firing heavy saturation missile waves with high numbers of small (size 2) secondary warheads. They have lost a reasonable number of missiles to targets changing course and moving out of range and also to having the main missile shot down before its reached separation range. However with new tech its been very easy to upgrade those missiles which have then been equally easy to deploy to older ships making them remain very effective for longer periods. The other point to note is its one thing to detect and fire on the larger missiles but its quite another to get your AMMs to then reach and destroy the large missiles before separation - I've regularly seen hostiles waste large numbers of AMMs shooting down the larger missiles that have already deployed whilst the smaller, still undetected sub munitions, have made it further inside their firing range.

All in all then I see pros and cons on both and no clear winner which to me means there is good enjoyable balance in the two strategies.

I have also used both in several multi nation campaigns and I can also say they have their merits for different reasons, you can also use both sometimes. Nothing stopping you from putting multi-stage missiles on fighters either.

What has happened in those campaigns was that nations that had slightly less research strength used multi-staged missiles since good fighters required a bit more initial research to get going. It was also quite frequently needed to deploy multi-stage missiles on both fighters and especially FAC to outrange the sometimes ridiculous long range small res sensors.

But in most of those campaigns the majority of the offensive missiles was situated on smaller ships or fighters while the larger ships provided support and protection of the fleets and tried to stay out of fire range if possible. Poor countries often relied on long range FAC to fight their wars because large shipyards are prime real estate in a mutli nation environment where ships now at medium quality is ten times better than a high quality ship in the future.

I have also found that I sometimes wanted very small FAC, such as 550-650 ton because sometimes I want the possibility of upgrade and retain the crew of those attack crafts. Also not giving the other side one optimal size to build sensors for can be quite important. So having smaller crafts ranging from 150-1000 ton are quite useful.

The benefit of "fighters" in 600 ton range is how fast they can be constructed and upgraded when you have premade components done by your industry.

[Michael Sandy (OP)]

If you are controlling both sides of a battle, you will get to see the missiles that got outranged go off into nowhere.  But if you are only playing one side, you generally won't.  So even if bouncing in and out of range is a successful strategy, it is kind of hard to tell sometimes.  If you are playing the game in part to create after action reports, even if they are only in your head, it is a bit awkward.

It may be a reason a lot of the most enjoyable after action reports involve beam engagements.  Because the player can actually see or infer most of the action that is going on.

Writing the story of a scouting battle sounds challenging.  It is a type of battle that both sides could think that they won, or that both sides thought that they lost.

Setting up a scouting/screening formation is a heck of a lot more time consuming and challenging than the classic Empire State Building formation, stick everything in a single dot formation.

I would be reluctant to use missiles larger than size 6 against an opponent that used a lot of AMMs.  Giving them more range and potential engagement time against them doesn't seem worth the extra capacity of the missiles and submunitions.

I am curious if anybody uses minimum sized gauss fighters as a long ranged anti-civilian shipping tool in pvp games.  They have a ridiculously low dps, but it is sustainable, so any unarmed ship and unescorted ship they can find, they can kill.  And escorting isn't cheap in terms of fuel.  It is a tactic that is potentially stronger against players than against the AI, a rarity, because players may depend on ununarmed jump tenders they leave behind at a jump point.  It is a cheap tactic that either yields a huge payout, or at least forces your opponent to significantly divide their forces and attention.

My colony defense scheme in general involves basing a scout element at each colony, as well as some cheap, fast, beam fighters for hunting down enemy survey ships and scouts.  The idea being that it is impossible to be strong everywhere, but having the ability to kill unarmed ships reliably is a way of holding and claiming territory.  Psychologically, if they meet another race that fights them enough to get a feel for their doctrine, encountering a scout force that can spot them that MIGHT be providing targeting information to a hidden missile fleet might allow the defending scouts to bluff the enemy away from the colony.  Or at least, that is the logic sold to nervous colonial politicians.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I have had raiding ships that generally had one or a few beam fighters for the purpose of engaging defenseless ships and then quickly slip away to dock with the raider. Quite useful and annoying tactic. Mainly because many factions often share the same systems and such which make low intensity warfare allot more common. In most of my role-playing the identity of ships are not always known either.

I'm used to use allot of scouting forces in VB6 Aurora since I put restriction on sensor sizes which made scouting a bit more interesting. You can easily use the escort functionality of the game to create patrol pattern around your fleets. Some more tools for patrol zones and such would be nice in C# Aurora though, perhaps Steve should steal some ideas from Command Air & Naval Operations... nudge nudge...

[SevenOfCarina]

I would contest that claim.

Most doctrines generally either involve independent warships and their logistics train or parasites and their carriers. Your argument is that the fighter-carrier doctrine is cheaper in terms of logistical, research, and construction costs. That isn't exactly true. In terms of research, an empire dependant on fighters is at the very least is required to pursue the Fighter Production Rate tech line, as well as both the Small Craft ECM and ECCM tech lines, none of which are cheap, and the costs of which will easily offset the expense of larger engines, sensors, and fire controls. There's also the issue of shipyards being better at construction than fighter factors - assuming 400 BP per shipyard per year and 10 BP per fighter factory per year, a 10,000 ton military yard with four slipways consumes five million population, costs 11,760 BP and builds at 2,400 BP per year, while a hundred fighter factories consume five million population, cost 12,000 BP and build at 1,000 BP per year. While the shipyards will take a while to expand to capacity and add slipways, once it's done, it's just retooling that's a concern. And with careful planning, you can build multiple hulls in the same shipyard, so multiple shipyards aren't always a requirement. Then there's also the fact that the carriers themselves will require large yards with multiple slipways, apart from any FAC designs. Fighters aren't actually significantly cheaper than full-blown warships.

Doctrine-wise, I'm not exactly a proponent of blob tactics either, so let me get this straight : I am not arguing that bunching up an entire fleet in one location is a good idea by any means, and I am not attempting to dismiss the efficacy of scouting and reconnaissance.

That being said, some of your claims aren't backed up by Steve's figures. To standardise things, I'll be comparing the performance of 250 ton missile fighter engaging a 5,000 ton escort using the figures in the C# Aurora Changes List subforum.

Let's start with engagement range : a 250 ton fighter can maybe host a 50 ton fire control, so it can target the escort at a range of 56m km. Taking into account the 20% disparity between ECM levels (small-craft ECM vs compact ECM), a 250 ton fire control is needed to match range, which the escort can definitely afford. The escort can also comfortably mount a 500 ton fire control that will blow the fighter out from well beyond range. I'm confused as to where there's been a mention of a 50 ton fire control having range of 120m km? This is also ignoring passive sensors, which, in C# Aurora, will be quite good at detecting powerful engines at close range.

Let's move on to the fuel issue. In C# Aurora, fighters will have considerably reduced range, while larger ships will see increased range. A 250 ton fighter can take a 100 ton drive, which, given C# Aurora's rules, will have a fuel consumption modifier of x2.23. The 5,000 ton escort, mounting a 2,000 ton drive, will have a modifier of x0.50. In my fleet, that'll be a 1,500 ton drive with power modifier of x2.0 and a fuel modifier of x1.41, or a 100 ton drive with a power modifier of x3.0 and a fuel modifier of x34.86. The fighter is only twice as fast, but has maybe one twentieth the range. With a bit of insanity and 50% engine ratios, you can actually get an escort up to fighter speeds with only a x1.55 fuel modifier. I don't see how that can be realistically countered, especially since speed is everything in missile combat. You can also scout effectively with these larger ships.

There's also the issue of magazine depth. I'm not arguing that a fighter swarm will not be able to throw a larger alpha-strike than a warship. I'm arguing that the extra strike volume is useless because it's literally impossible to kill or even cripple more than one or two warships in a single salvo out of a fleet of a dozen, unless you have a ridiculous 10:1 tonnage advantage or something like that. Alpha strikes stop mattering in large-scale ship-to-ship brawls. In a fight between two equal-speed fleets, one with x0.3 reduced size launchers will kill more of the fleet with x0.75 reduced size launchers in the opening salvo, but there's a good chance it'll get annihilated before it can fire again.

All I'm trying to assert is that a lot of what can be done by a fighter-carrier combo can quite often be done with equal effectiveness by a warship-auxiliary combo.

[Jorgen_CAB]

In C# Aurora FC have twice the range of an Active scanning device... so a Size 1 resolution 100 FC have a range of roughly 80mkm that takes a size 30 resolution 5 comparable active sensor or size 16 res 5 FC for the same range. Certainly not beyond the range of possibility.

One problem though is that small crafts can easily range from say 200 to 1000ton and can deliver offensive missiles from many different ranges. It will be MUCH harder to match fighter FC in C# Aurora.

You also need to factor in that fighters are a bit more efficient in their offensive capacity than a big ship in general and you are not restricted to just one fighter size type. You can have multiple different types of fighters making it very hard for the opponent to match their size perfectly with both active and FC. I don't think you would even try doing that in general given how efficient small active sensors now are in comparison to larger ones.

You also forget that both passive and actively guided missiles will be way more viable in C# Aurora because of how efficient small sensors now are. That means missiles can be launched beyond FC range in many instances, so that is not always a heavy requirement.

You also need to look at the industrial cost of the fighters themselves, they don't have to be that expensive. You don't have to over engineer their engines. Most strike fighters/FAC only need about twice the speed of a normal ship. For the most part a minority of my fighters are faster than that such as interceptors and the like. This keep their cost reasonably cheap to produce. Just for comparison a 400t fighter I created had a cost of roughly 100BP and a 10.000 sort of standard Missile Ship did cost around 1700BP with the same tech levels. Each fighter had 4 Size 6 box launchers and the ship had 8 size 6 full size launchers. So the fighter packs roughly 1 launcher per 100 ton, that means a carrier with say 4000t hangar can launch a strike with a 40 size salvo, not too shabby.

Carriers don't need to be that large either, not larger than most other capital warships.

I would never build capital ships with hugely overpowered engines, but that is up to operational doctrines of course. Large engines like that are extremely expensive on your fuel infrastructure to support and take too much research to build in my opinion to be worth it. You also need huge amount of space for fuel on the ship itself if you want any sort of range. Fighters don't need much range often less than a billion km.

I agree that the initial research for fighter centric combat is more expensive but the dynamic and versatility of fighters is certainly worth it. It will force the opponent to spend lots of research to try and counter it and often that is fighters of their own eventually.

[SevenOfCarina]

I thought a 50 ton fire control acted like a 100 ton sensor? 

Let's reconsider this whole mess from a wider perspective. The range at which a fleet can hide is entirely dependent on the size of its largest constituent ship. Now that sensors need to be four times the size of a fire control for the same range, fighter sensors will be size limited. Assuming a 40% payload ratio, a 250 ton fighter can host a 100 ton sensor with range of 56m km, a 500 ton fighter can host a 200 ton sensor with a range of 80m km, and a 1,000 ton FAC can host a 400 ton sensor with a range of 113m km. Another important thing to consider is the difference in ECM level - the fighters cannot afford to match shipboard ECM and will likely suffer a 20% degradation in range, allowing shipboard sensors to remain viable. In order to match range, you'll need three 800 ton sensors of variable resolution - which would probably fit on a 5,000 ton recon frigate. They're not that expensive either - the three of these together will only cost as much as the equivalent small craft ECM tech.

There's also the fact that 500-1,000 ton crafts are FACs, and not fighters - they can't be built in fighter factories and thus need shipyards, which will require constant retooling, limiting flexibility. Retooling gets expensive and time-consuming with the smaller yards, as they build slower and also normally have dozens of slipways. So I can be fairly certain that your fleet's FAC complement will not change without significant warning.

I also don't believe that missiles can be launched from beyond sensor range. You need a lock to fire, but they're free to go after that if they get within their own sensor range.

Also, twice the speed of a normal ship against me and my overbuilt contraptions is 40% engines at a 3.0x boost. That'll get expensive fast. It might work against a slower opponent, though.

EDIT : Curiously, the C# rules have actually made mid-sized low resolution active sensors more effective than their VB6 counterparts. The size at which a C# sensor matches range with a VB6 sensor is 100 tons for R200, 150 tons for R100, 250 tons for R20, 400 tons for R5, and 750 tons for R1. It appears that small warships (2,000-5,000 tons) will now be very effective at scouting.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I thought a 50 ton fire control acted like a 100 ton sensor? 

Let's reconsider this whole mess from a wider perspective. The range at which a fleet can hide is entirely dependent on the size of its largest constituent ship. Now that sensors need to be four times the size of a fire control for the same range, fighter sensors will be size limited. Assuming a 40% payload ratio, a 250 ton fighter can host a 100 ton sensor with range of 56m km, a 500 ton fighter can host a 200 ton sensor with a range of 80m km, and a 1,000 ton FAC can host a 400 ton sensor with a range of 113m km. Another important thing to consider is the difference in ECM level - the fighters cannot afford to match shipboard ECM and will likely suffer a 20% degradation in range, allowing shipboard sensors to remain viable. In order to match range, you'll need three 800 ton sensors of variable resolution - which would probably fit on a 5,000 ton recon frigate. They're not that expensive either - the three of these together will only cost as much as the equivalent small craft ECM tech.

There's also the fact that 500-1,000 ton crafts are FACs, and not fighters - they can't be built in fighter factories and thus need shipyards, which will require constant retooling, limiting flexibility. Retooling gets expensive and time-consuming with the smaller yards, as they build slower and also normally have dozens of slipways. So I can be fairly certain that your fleet's FAC complement will not change without significant warning.

I also don't believe that missiles can be launched from beyond sensor range. You need a lock to fire, but they're free to go after that if they get within their own sensor range.

Also, twice the speed of a normal ship against me and my overbuilt contraptions is 40% engines at a 3.0x boost. That'll get expensive fast. It might work against a slower opponent, though.

EDIT : Curiously, the C# rules have actually made mid-sized low resolution active sensors more effective than their VB6 counterparts. The size at which a C# sensor matches range with a VB6 sensor is 100 tons for R200, 150 tons for R100, 250 tons for R20, 400 tons for R5, and 750 tons for R1. It appears that small warships (2,000-5,000 tons) will now be very effective at scouting.

Those ship engines will eat your economy (both resource and research) dry in comparison with an economy that use more moderately expensive engines overall. Fuel economy is really important for your overall logistical and industrial efficiency. Some over engineered fighter engines with very limited range and fuel cost is nothing in comparison in cost throughout an entire campaign... 
Not to mention being easily detected by thermal sensor if you actually use that speed unless you don't make them even more expensive with thermal reduction as well. How much fuel do you put in those things?!?
Also consider you will not be able to cheat fleet training anymore so you will burn ALLOT of fuel and maintenance while doing so. Can it work, perhaps... but for me... I'm too much of an economist for doing that. I rather spend more research into better long term engine technology.

Any way.... remember that passive sensors is what will detect most things. Most passive will detect sensors before they themselves are detected. If you go active sensors you are likely to be detected before you see anything and likely  to attract attention and an attack.

It is possible to fire weapons at a point in space after which the weapon can use either active and/or passive to find a target. Since those very small sensors now are much more powerful using such weapons are much more likely and easy to use. You can fire them long before you are detected and just turn around. You don't need an active lock to do any of that.

The point is, detecting the enemy is key... in C# Aurora that means scouting with smaller assets and then protecting them will be important. This is why the fighter/FAC platform will become even more important overall. It will not invalidate larger ships as support for those smaller platform though, they will work good as a combined arms force.

Yes... smaller ships is now more effective at the scouting role which is nice.

Just also remember that everything ties together, industry, research and military doctrine. Anything very expensive and over engineered must be in limited numbers or you will put brakes on both industry and research which in turn means your quality drops over time against what it should have been. Just take sensors as an example. The larger and more types you research means you put better general sensor tech on hold. At lower tech level a very big active sensors can almost represent en entire tech step advancement as an example. Now when range is not linear you are likely better of with relatively small sensors in general.

[SevenOfCarina]

Those ship engines will eat your economy (both resource and research) dry in comparison with an economy that use more moderately expensive engines overall. Fuel economy is really important for your overall logistical and industrial efficiency. Some over engineered fighter engines with very limited range and fuel cost is nothing in comparison in cost throughout an entire campaign... 
Not to mention being easily detected by thermal sensor if you actually use that speed unless you don't make them even more expensive with thermal reduction as well. How much fuel do you put in those things?!?
Also consider you will not be able to cheat fleet training anymore so you will burn ALLOT of fuel and maintenance while doing so. Can it work, perhaps... but for me... I'm too much of an economist for doing that. I rather spend more research into better long term engine technology.

Just also remember that everything ties together, industry, research and military doctrine. Anything very expensive and over engineered must be in limited numbers or you will put brakes on both industry and research which in turn means your quality drops over time against what it should have been. Just take sensors as an example. The larger and more types you research means you put better general sensor tech on hold. At lower tech level a very big active sensors can almost represent en entire tech step advancement as an example. Now when range is not linear you are likely better of with relatively small sensors in general.

I prefer to start building a serious fleet only around mid-game, when I start expanding, so I tend to aim for around 10,000 km/s speed and 40 billion km range for the slowest ships at Magnetic Confinement Era. I don't generally have issues with fuel at that point - sorium harvesters are really good. Running the entire fleet of a hundred ships at full throttle nonstop for a year will cost me around a million tons of fuel, but at that point, my production is normally in the low hundreds of thousands of tons per year, with a multi-million ton strategic reserve, and a logistical train of tens of tankers and tugboats. I also fail to see why I'd need my ships to cover 400 billion kilometres per year?

And regarding research costs, do note that what you said only holds true for the largest 2,500 ton sensors, which I've never seriously considered. I'm talking about sensors a third of the size; the additional research cost will be offset by the fact that I don't need to research Small Craft ECM and ECCM, and Fighter Production Rate, all of which are full techs and thus ridiculously expensive. Three 800 ton sensors and their fire controls plus two over-engineered, over-boosted engines will still not cost significantly more than those three. Here, let me prove it : at around Ion Era [~10,000 RP], the three 800 ton sensors cost 3,360 RP each, their equivalent fire controls cost 840 RP each, a 2,500 ton 1.6x drive costs 4,800 RP, and a 1,500 ton 2.0x drive costs 3,600 RP, for a total of 21,000 RP. In contrast, you'll be spending 2,940 RP on a 100 ton, a 200 ton, and a 300 ton sensor, another 735 RP on their fire controls, 4,000 RP on small craft ECM and ECCM, and 10,000 RP on fighter production rate 16 BP, for a total of 17,675 RP. The difference in research costs is 3,325 RP - pretty much negligible when the next tech level starts at 20,000 RP.

Any way.... remember that passive sensors is what will detect most things. Most passive will detect sensors before they themselves are detected. If you go active sensors you are likely to be detected before you see anything and likely  to attract attention and an attack.

It is possible to fire weapons at a point in space after which the weapon can use either active and/or passive to find a target. Since those very small sensors now are much more powerful using such weapons are much more likely and easy to use. You can fire them long before you are detected and just turn around. You don't need an active lock to do any of that.

The point is, detecting the enemy is key... in C# Aurora that means scouting with smaller assets and then protecting them will be important. This is why the fighter/FAC platform will become even more important overall. It will not invalidate larger ships as support for those smaller platform though, they will work good as a combined arms force.

Yes... smaller ships is now more effective at the scouting role which is nice.

Actually, as Steve himself has stated, passive sensors will be better at detecting cooler, nearby objects than hotter, more distant objects. A 500 ton fighter will, at minimum, have one-twentieth the signature of a 10,000 ton cruiser, so thermal sensors will see the ship x4.47 farther out. However, passive sensors have vastly inferior range compared to active sensors, so this is a non-issue. Unless, of course, you're worried about DSTs, but those'll see you half a system out anyway, so why bother?

And that tactic of firing missiles at a waypoint will not work unless the hostile fleet is somehow expected to remain perfectly still and the hostile commander is expected to have absolutely no concept of the military tactic of drunk-walking.