Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: TallTroll
« on: April 05, 2012, 01:33:36 PM »

Self-designed. Looking at the costs, there does seem to be a large amount of Uridium being used (which I find very amusing btw - although it should be used for engines or something specific to fighters, not scanners, obviously). I'll try a delete and redo then
Posted by: Erik L
« on: April 05, 2012, 01:19:37 PM »

Quote from: TallTroll on April 05, 2012, 12:00:45 PM
On a related note, my new game (I broke the last one) I have a new missile design which says it has "Active 16" sensors in the Ord / Ftr tab when designing a PDC with mags. But - it has no sensors listed in the missile design screen, and I certainly didn't intend to give it any. There doesn't seem to be any design weight allocated to sensors either.

Have I broken missiles too, now?

Did you design it yourself, or did you let the game design ships and such for you? If you let the game do it, some things don't quite add up right.
Posted by: Thiosk
« on: April 05, 2012, 01:07:45 PM »

Look at the material required to build it.  If there is an exorbitant amount of resources needed, delete the design and remake a new one.  Theres a known bug with sensors on missiles that skews the resources needed to build the missile.
Posted by: TallTroll
« on: April 05, 2012, 12:00:45 PM »

On a related note, my new game (I broke the last one) I have a new missile design which says it has "Active 16" sensors in the Ord / Ftr tab when designing a PDC with mags. But - it has no sensors listed in the missile design screen, and I certainly didn't intend to give it any. There doesn't seem to be any design weight allocated to sensors either.

Have I broken missiles too, now?
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: April 04, 2012, 12:31:35 PM »

Thermal Sensors on AMMs are probably a waste of space.

Looking at the numbers, in my current game I have Thermal Sensor Strength 8, but lets assume I am further in the game and have 18.

If I dedicate 10% of the missile (i.e. 0.1 MSP) to Thermals, this will give me a Thermal Sensor Strength of 0.9, which means the missile can detect a strength-1000 thermal contact out to 90.000 km.
Now, missiles have thermal signatures in the single digit to low two-digit range (I do belive the Engine Power Value in the missile design screen directely translates to the thermal signature of that missile). Lets assume, the enemy missile is rather large and has a thermal sig of 30. My sensor could see this missile out to a range of 90.000 x 30 : 1000 or 2.700 km.
In order to pick up that missle as a new target, the enemy missile would have to end a 5-sec tick within that range. For a missile travelling a 20.000 km/s (or 100.000 km per 5-sec tic) that´s a rather small chance. And don´t forget, that this is a damn hot missile. My current size-4 ASMs have a thermal sig of 7 and move at 34.000 km/s
Posted by: TallTroll
« on: April 04, 2012, 10:05:56 AM »

>> Missiles do have a thermal signature, yes.

So it might be worth putting a small sensor on an AMM, if it has the range to use it

>> Sensors do not stack

No, but it might be nice if they did  :P It would be a way to allow less advanced navies to compete on engagement ranges, albeit at the cost of devoting already scare hull tonnage to data link gear.

Imagine if you had a very basic 3000 ish ton, sqn 4 JD. Team a Jump Tender with 3 3000 ton sensor heavy ships. Assuming they survive transit and aren't destroyed by forces picketing the JP, they all light up what sensors they have. If the sensors stacked, they'd be able to see much further than any of them individually, or any ship of 3000 tons normally would. Since their indiviudal EM signatures wouldn't change though, they might be able to see without being seen, since they won't be pulsing a massive sensor searchlight over the system. Those ships would be way specialised though, totally incapable of performing any duties other than those they were designed for, really

>> My advice to you, if building a missile-heavy fleet, is to invest in a heavily armoured and unarmed (unless you have the extra space to arm it!) command/sensor ship

Probably going to build one eventually even if I don't go heavily into missiles, since it seems an efficient way of doing things. One of the few cases a CIWS might be useful too. I think I'm going to need some missile capability, because them and mesons are the only weapons a PDC can really use, and it's the *only* way a PDC can have real reach, and perform it's primary function of actually protecting the planet it's on
Posted by: dgibso29
« on: April 04, 2012, 09:26:19 AM »

Missiles do have a thermal signature, yes. However, I don't know enough to speak of the mechanic behind it. (If it is relative to engine MSP etc). So it may be effective to put a very small thermal sensor on your AMMs - more often than not, enemy missiles will be coming at you in a line.

Sensors do not stack. My advice to you, if building a missile-heavy fleet, is to invest in a heavily armoured and unarmed (unless you have the extra space to arm it!) command/sensor ship. I personally design a 1000 or 1500ton sensor for resolution 1, 20, and 100, however, it depends on the capabilities of your missiles and your sensor tech, as well as personal preference. I like to be able to see missiles before they enter my PD envelope, so my Res 1 sensor is a big larger than most would consider necessary. Then, put a "back-up" sensor on your missile ships that is capable of detecting at least as far as your missiles maximum range, in case your sensor ship gets knocked out.
Posted by: TallTroll
« on: April 04, 2012, 08:00:44 AM »

@Garfunkel

No, I mean by stacking sensors of the same type.  The sensor heavy ship has a huge active sensor, say, and the data link component allows the ships in contact to increase their effective sensor ratings.  It would allow all sensors so linked to form a super sensor with multiple transmitting antennae and receivers

@Rastaman

Dunno, do missiles have a thermal sig rating? Given how hot commercial engines burn, it might give AMMs a better ability to track them
Posted by: Rastaman
« on: April 04, 2012, 07:08:59 AM »

Would thermal sensors on the AMM work?
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: April 04, 2012, 07:02:56 AM »

That is pretty much what most people do in early game. Use one sensor/command ship with a huge active sensor and only mount fire controls on missile frigates. That way you can keep the tonnage of an individual ship down.
Posted by: TallTroll
« on: April 04, 2012, 06:19:19 AM »

Ah, right this is what I was trying to get at.  Any secondary target has to be within the *missiles* sensor range? Missile borne sensors would seem only to be useful for firing at extreme engagement ranges.  Which is fine.  If I survive to later tech levels, I might look into a size 2, very long range AMM which could spare the space for a sensor.

Right now, the biggest PD sensor I can build will see size 6 missiles at a little over 5m km.  I might build one to mount on a dedicated sensor ship

Will a PD ship with a large sensor automatically guide the survivors of one AMM salvo onto another wave if they can see it then? Also, going off at a bit of a tangent, sensors currently share data, but don't stack, right? So if I have 2 sensors of the same type running, covering the same area they will both report a target they see, but only at their own detection values.  How about a ship system that lets you share data between sensor platforms in real time to create a virtual, larger system?

So, my monster nothing-but-sensors-and-engines beast sits a little to the rear of the formation, blasting space with 1. 21GW of sensor energy, and data links its feed to other ships within x km (LOS laser link, values based on laser research and component size?) The receiving ships integrate that into their own sensor data, and gain an effective increase in their own sensor size / values.  It makes dinky little backup sensors on gun heavy designs much more tactically useful, but also introduces a point of weakness for a fleet taking advantage of it.  If the Light of the Heavens goes down, no-one can see anything  ;D Early on especially, it might let low tech fleets form a giant interferometer, and compete with more advanced foes on engagement range.  But as battle is joined, and ships and sensors go down, they get harder and harder to see. . .

In real world physics, you really can do something similar, by using 2 smaller sources to illuminate an object, and computer mutilating the output to be as if one much larger source was used
Posted by: Erik L
« on: April 04, 2012, 05:49:00 AM »

Quote from: TallTroll on April 04, 2012, 05:00:41 AM
I think I have failed to fully explain my reasoning here.  If I understand how missiles work correctly (and I may not), any missile is launched at a target detected by active or passive sensors, but also needs an FC sensor, either on the launching vessel, or the missile itself for target guidance.

In the case of ASMs, putting a sensor on them may allow them to retarget themselves if their original target is destroyed during their flight time, since any ships close to the original target may be picked up.  Isn't the same true of missiles? If 2 forces are closing with each other, there is little or no lateral movement wrt the other - target bearings for both groups will remain steady.

Therefore any missiles fired (by either side) will stream straight on down a very narrow piece of space.  If an AMM had a very small sensor, maybe in the 0. 01 size bracket, and it kept going down the bearing it may pick up and engage other missiles, if it had the endurance to do so.  I'm not really trying to self guide AMMs, just let them reengage to increase their efficiency.  Or does the fact that they are launched under PD fire controls change things?

When the AMM loses its target, and it has onboard sensors, the sensors can only see what is in their radius. Unless you plan on having a suicidally short AMM range, the sensors are for secondary targets.

Now Thiosk's missiles I still don't think I'd put sensors on. His AMM have a speed of 90,000kps, or 450,000km in a 5 second increment. Figure ASM with a speed 2/3 of the AMM, you are talking 300,000km for the 5 second distance. The sensor range is too small on the missiles for it to be of use. I'd put the excess into fuel or agility.
Posted by: TallTroll
« on: April 04, 2012, 05:00:41 AM »

I think I have failed to fully explain my reasoning here.  If I understand how missiles work correctly (and I may not), any missile is launched at a target detected by active or passive sensors, but also needs an FC sensor, either on the launching vessel, or the missile itself for target guidance.

In the case of ASMs, putting a sensor on them may allow them to retarget themselves if their original target is destroyed during their flight time, since any ships close to the original target may be picked up.  Isn't the same true of missiles? If 2 forces are closing with each other, there is little or no lateral movement wrt the other - target bearings for both groups will remain steady.

Therefore any missiles fired (by either side) will stream straight on down a very narrow piece of space.  If an AMM had a very small sensor, maybe in the 0. 01 size bracket, and it kept going down the bearing it may pick up and engage other missiles, if it had the endurance to do so.  I'm not really trying to self guide AMMs, just let them reengage to increase their efficiency.  Or does the fact that they are launched under PD fire controls change things?
Posted by: Thiosk
« on: April 04, 2012, 01:06:07 AM »

Guidance AMMs might become feasible at extreme tech levels.

*goes to launch aurora*

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 34
Speed: 90000 km/s    Endurance: 1 minutes   Range: 6.0m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.975   Sensitivity Modifier: 240%
Resolution: 1    Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 230,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.325
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3060%   3k km/s 1020%   5k km/s 612%   10k km/s 306%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.975x Uridium   1.85x Gallicite   Fuel x25

Development Cost for Project: 332RP

I've got preeeeeety high tech on my game.  I conquer new alien races quite quickly on encountering them.

The Res 1 sensor is for a 50 ton object; the maximum range is typically not the range at which missiles are found (the values for various MSP classes can be found in ship design summaries).  the 230,000 km range may not be sufficient to actually target a missile within the increment time, given that all the oncoming missiles are moving very fast that could take them out of range.

But still.  At a certain level you don't really need much more speed or agility.  The sensor on this missile fully accounts for 1/3 of the space (32.5%).  Thats a big hunk of sensor.  I think a couple more sensor techs and you could really consider it as a viable method.  Seems pointless to use them for this short of a range.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: April 03, 2012, 11:21:38 PM »

With actives on a missile, you need to figure out the range of the scanner on the missile (very very very short), compare that to known or estimated opfor missiles. If your estimate is that the missile goes 20k kps, that's 100k km in one 5 second increment. Your missile scanners need a radius of 100k km minimum. Ideally half again as much.

*goes off to launch Aurora*

Looking at my current game, the missile sensor tech is 1.05 per MSP. So to detect a missile (res 1) at 150k km, I need to dedicate 2.5 MSP to sensors alone. This makes my AMM 4 MSP and a pathetic 11,200km/s speed. Of course, if I go with "dumb" AMM, I can hit a speed of 30,000 km/s. Much better intercept rates.

Now if we are talking shipkillers, figure a light missile at 4MSP, medium at 8MSP and heavy at 12MSP (this is just my prejudices on missile design showing through). Your light missile is going to be moving at 7500 km/s, do 2 pts of damage and have a detection range of 1.57 million km for a 5000 ton hull. That 2.5 space of sensor would probably be better off in engines and warhead, and leave the auto-targeting missiles to the medium or heavies that can spare a couple MSP to scanners.

Of course, I've not researched any missile scanner tech and I'm about 17 months into the game, so higher techs will have better missiles.