Aurora 4x

C# Aurora => C# Mechanics => Topic started by: Entaro on November 21, 2021, 08:55:28 AM

Title: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 21, 2021, 08:55:28 AM
I have questions about sensors . . .  Unfortunately, reading the articles on the wiki did not answer all the questions.

As I understand it, for successful warfare, I need sensors for the following ships:
1.  Ship / buoy / platform in the place (or near) where the enemy's fleet is located.
2.  A reconnaissance ship that could remain unnoticed at a distance of 5-10 million km.  give information about the enemy, and possibly even about the missiles they launch.
3.  Sensors for the combat fleet, allowing you to see enemy ships at a distance of 100 million km.
4.  Sensors for two-stage missiles, allowing the first stages of my missiles to find targets at a distance of 5-10 million km.
5.  Sensors for missile defense, allowing to detect enemy missiles at a distance of 0. 5-1 million km.

Didn't you forget anything?
So the questions:

1) The main question is what technologies, and to what level I need to develop in order to start designing sensors, so that I don't have to re-equip everything with new ones in a few years.
2) What are the basics of sensor design?
3) What are the best sensors to put on reconnaissance ships and missiles - active or thermal?
4) Are there somewhere examples of sensor projects for different occasions where you can see them?
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 21, 2021, 12:53:05 PM
The only sensors that you absolutely need are sensors that allow your warships to target enemy ships and kill them. Everything else is optional (but many other sensors are good ideas).

For beam warships, a fairly small Res-1 active sensor is all you strictly need since beam weapons have very short ranges. Usually you will want to support these by having some ships with larger sensors to actually find the enemy so you can go shoot them.

For missiles you generally need at least one kind of sensor for your anti-ship missiles (usually around Res-100) and another kind for your anti-missile missiles (Res-1). The bigger the sensor, the farther away you can detect enemy ships and shoot at them if you have long enough missile range. Again, you may want a larger sensor for detection but it is not strictly necessary.

Both kinds of passive sensors are also valuable. EM sensors are mainly used to detect the active sensor emissions of enemy ships, they are important as warning sensors. If you can detect the enemy active sensors with your EM sensors this can allow you to evade detection or prepare for the enemy attack. Thermal sensors are best used to detect the engine emissions of moving ships, and are useful then the enemy ship is not emitting sensor signatures but you also want to remain undetected (i.e., not using your active sensors). Again, strictly speaking you do not need these as you can fly around with your actives on all the time and probably do fine, but they give you more options and capabilities.

Sensors on missiles are quite honestly a complex enough topic that I suggest saving this until you are comfortable with "normal" missiles and also have some comfort with different sensor types. Learn to walk before running, or some such wise saying...  ;)
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 21, 2021, 03:31:37 PM
Based on what I know (from the wiki and from here), I see the situation something like this:
1. I need a huge powerful active search sensor, which will be located on a huge powerful station, which will be a heavy and very armored fleet base. This will allow me to make this sensor huge, and less fear that the station will be destroyed by the enemy (it takes a lot of missiles to shred the armor of a huge station).
The sensor requirements are the ability to detect ships from 3000t at a distance 1.5 times longer than the range of my missiles.
You can also place a huge low-resolution sensor on it to detect enemy missiles.

2. At what distance will active sensors not detect my 100-200t platform with passive sensors?
I would place these at a distance of 2-10m from the jump points through which the enemy will pass ...

3. On two-stage rockets - a question.
Do I understand correctly that if the target of the missile is destroyed, then the active sensor will redirect the missile to the largest available target?
It turns out that after the destruction of targets, many missiles of subsequent volleys will be directed exclusively at the largest ship? I would not like it to be some kind of cargo ship ...

4. I am only worried about one thing - there was a bug or a feature with the self-destruction of a two-stage missile after losing a target ...
I would be very grateful if you can tell how it works.

Regarding "regular" missiles - to be honest, I'm not sure if I want to use them.
The problem with conventional rockets is that:
 - they absolutely uselessly spend a lot of fuel flying at high speed to the enemy (if they fly 50 million km, but in fact, high speed is needed only for the last 2 million km.
 - If their target is destroyed, they self-destruct, or you need to put sensors on each of them - which is not economical.
Even when using rockets of the same size, adding a second stage, and thus placing an economical engine and sensors on the first stage, makes a lot of sense, I think.

If we are talking about single-stage missiles - I see only one scenario for their effective use - for conducting combat operations at close range. This will allow missiles to be launched as effective as two-stage combat missiles, but this requires the creation of ships moving at high speed (so that you can keep a distance from the enemy with beam weapons), and with powerful anti-missile defenses.

Thus, it seems to me that the most advantageous variant of warfare is to shoot two-stage missiles from the maximum distance.
In addition, this will allow the use of powerful combat stations.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 21, 2021, 04:42:24 PM
Based on what I know (from the wiki and from here), I see the situation something like this:
1. I need a huge powerful active search sensor, which will be located on a huge powerful station, which will be a heavy and very armored fleet base. This will allow me to make this sensor huge, and less fear that the station will be destroyed by the enemy (it takes a lot of missiles to shred the armor of a huge station).
The sensor requirements are the ability to detect ships from 3000t at a distance 1.5 times longer than the range of my missiles.
You can also place a huge low-resolution sensor on it to detect enemy missiles.

Size 6 or 9 for a sensor is plenty big and you can put it on a ship - a fleet scout or command cruiser works fine for this so you are not taking up a lot of space on your main combat ships with sensors.

Quote
2. At what distance will active sensors not detect my 100-200t platform with passive sensors?
I would place these at a distance of 2-10m from the jump points through which the enemy will pass ...

They will probably still be detected. I would probably recommend to just put them on or near the jump point, and if they die then it is not a big deal - a 100 ton platform is cheap and easy to replace.

Quote
3. On two-stage rockets - a question.
Do I understand correctly that if the target of the missile is destroyed, then the active sensor will redirect the missile to the largest available target?
It turns out that after the destruction of targets, many missiles of subsequent volleys will be directed exclusively at the largest ship? I would not like it to be some kind of cargo ship ...

I believe so. It is a weakness of active sensor missiles.

Please keep in mind - when Steve designed how missiles worked, one of the key principles was that even if you are using complicated ideas involving sensors there still needs to be an element of gameplay which makes the player using missiles have to actually plan their firing intelligently. Estimating how many missiles to use on each enemy ship to kill everything without wasting ordnance is a core part of the gameplay, and even sensor missiles are not able to avoid it. This is why I keep recommending - use simple missiles (just warhead, engine, fuel, agility) until you are familiar with the game, then start playing around with the clever tricks like sensor and two-stage missiles once you can intuit how these interact with the core mechanics of the game.

Quote
4. I am only worried about one thing - there was a bug or a feature with the self-destruction of a two-stage missile after losing a target ...
I would be very grateful if you can tell how it works.

Bug if the first stage has a sensor, working as intended if the first stage is "dumb" (no sensor)

Quote
Regarding "regular" missiles - to be honest, I'm not sure if I want to use them.
The problem with conventional rockets is that:
 - they absolutely uselessly spend a lot of fuel flying at high speed to the enemy (if they fly 50 million km, but in fact, high speed is needed only for the last 2 million km.
 - If their target is destroyed, they self-destruct, or you need to put sensors on each of them - which is not economical.
Even when using rockets of the same size, adding a second stage, and thus placing an economical engine and sensors on the first stage, makes a lot of sense, I think.

If we are talking about single-stage missiles - I see only one scenario for their effective use - for conducting combat operations at close range. This will allow missiles to be launched as effective as two-stage combat missiles, but this requires the creation of ships moving at high speed (so that you can keep a distance from the enemy with beam weapons), and with powerful anti-missile defenses.

Thus, it seems to me that the most advantageous variant of warfare is to shoot two-stage missiles from the maximum distance.
In addition, this will allow the use of powerful combat stations.

You do have to keep in mind that the fuel used for a single-stage missile is not really wasted. A two-stage missile is also "wasteful" - you still have to put an engine, fuel, and any sensor you want (otherwise the missile will still detonate if it loses its target), and all of this is in addition to the second stage that does the actual attacking. The first stage does not need to be high-performance, this is true, but it still need to be quick enough to catch the enemy fleet, so it is not sufficient to just put a very small, low-efficiency engine on the first stage and call it a day.

For example, at roughly Ion Drive tech level (8k to 10k RP techs), a single-stage "dumb" missile could look like this:

    Warhead MSP: 0.80
    Engine MSP: 2.31 @ 3.90x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.48375
    Agility MSP: 0.40625
    Total Size: 4.0 MSP
    Speed: 28,150 km/s
    Range: 40 million km
    Hit%: 95.71% against 5000 km/s target

These are just numbers I have pulled from my missile design spreadsheet. If you want to reduce the range to something like 2m km and use a two-stage design, then you are looking at something like (still "dumb" missiles):

    First Stage
    Second Stage MSP: 3.0
    Engine MSP: 0.86 @ 2.75x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.14
    Agility MSP: 0.0
    Total Size: 4.0 MSP
    Speed: 7,400 km/s
    Range: 38 million km
    Separation distance: 2m km

    Second Stage
    Warhead MSP: 0.80
    Engine MSP: 2.12 @ 5.0x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.056562
    Agility MSP: 0.023438
    Total Size: 3.0 MSP
    Speed: 43,133 km/s
    Range: 2 million km
    Hit%: 97.1% against 5000 km/s target

The second stage definitely gives better combat performance, but the first stage is only 1/4 as fast as the single-stage missile, and to get this amount of performance you are actually spending more gallicite (which is used in all engines, including missile engines) which is quite a precious resource for a missile-based fleet. Ultimately, each design has its own pros and cons, and these are only examples as you can do a lot more, but I simply want to illustrate that single-stage missiles are really perfectly fine and not something to be worried about as "inefficient".

As far as "smart" vs "dumb" missiles, there are again pros and cons here, a "smart" missile has to dedicate a nontrivial part of its size to sensors and reactors, which means less performance in terms of engine, agility, or fuel. A "smart" missile with sensors might be able to avoid wasting the missiles of following salvos on destroyed targets, but the "dumb" missile will be a lot more effective at actually destroying targets in the first place. With good judgment in the initial targeting for each volley of missiles, a smart player can conserve ammunition and get a lot more out of the "dumb" missiles in many cases.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 21, 2021, 06:46:01 PM
I believe so. It is a weakness of active sensor missiles.

Please keep in mind - when Steve designed how missiles worked, one of the key principles was that even if you are using complicated ideas involving sensors there still needs to be an element of gameplay which makes the player using missiles have to actually plan their firing intelligently. Estimating how many missiles to use on each enemy ship to kill everything without wasting ordnance is a core part of the gameplay, and even sensor missiles are not able to avoid it. This is why I keep recommending - use simple missiles (just warhead, engine, fuel, agility) until you are familiar with the game, then start playing around with the clever tricks like sensor and two-stage missiles once you can intuit how these interact with the core mechanics of the game.
I agree, it really looks like a weak point. On the other hand, except for the situation when the largest ship inside the navy is some kind of commercial (by the way, I personally would do this in my fleet, I would also hang large sensors on it so that it shines brightly! and more engines, so that any sensors determine it as a priority)
The question is, what is the alternative?
If the distance between the volleys is large enough, then even if the large ship selected automatically is a useless truck, it will be destroyed rather quickly due to its low armor, and the next volleys will be redirected to other ships.
If there are no sensors, all missiles aimed at the destroyed ships will simply disappear.






Quote
Bug if the first stage has a sensor, working as intended if the first stage is "dumb" (no sensor)
Does the error in any way relate to the second stage? Those. if you launch conventional missiles with sensors, will they fly to the point of the last target anyway, even if the target is lost?



Quote
For example, at roughly Ion Drive tech level (8k to 10k RP techs), a single-stage "dumb" missile could look like this:

    Warhead MSP: 0.80
    Engine MSP: 2.31 @ 3.90x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.48375
    Agility MSP: 0.40625
    Total Size: 4.0 MSP
    Speed: 28,150 km/s
    Range: 40 million km
    Hit%: 95.71% against 5000 km/s target

These are just numbers I have pulled from my missile design spreadsheet. If you want to reduce the range to something like 2m km and use a two-stage design, then you are looking at something like (still "dumb" missiles):

    First Stage
    Second Stage MSP: 3.0
    Engine MSP: 0.86 @ 2.75x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.14
    Agility MSP: 0.0
    Total Size: 4.0 MSP
    Speed: 7,400 km/s
    Range: 38 million km
    Separation distance: 2m km

    Second Stage
    Warhead MSP: 0.80
    Engine MSP: 2.12 @ 5.0x EP modifier (max 5x)
    Fuel MSP: 0.056562
    Agility MSP: 0.023438
    Total Size: 3.0 MSP
    Speed: 43,133 km/s
    Range: 2 million km
    Hit%: 97.1% against 5000 km/s target

The second stage definitely gives better combat performance, but the first stage is only 1/4 as fast as the single-stage missile, and to get this amount of performance you are actually spending more gallicite (which is used in all engines, including missile engines) which is quite a precious resource for a missile-based fleet. Ultimately, each design has its own pros and cons, and these are only examples as you can do a lot more, but I simply want to illustrate that single-stage missiles are really perfectly fine and not something to be worried about as "inefficient".
I wanted to ask, by the way, what speed should I aim for ideally? I understand that the more, the better, but still, there is some optimal speed, taking into account the point defense (there seems to be 10 thousand km / s tracking), above which the return from increasing the speed does not grow too much?

Roughly speaking, which is better - 200 missiles at a speed of 30 thousand km / s or 300 at a speed of 20 thousand km / s? I understand that everything depends on the defense systems of the enemy fleet, and nevertheless?



HM. I used a calculator from the forum, I'm not sure if I picked up the same parameters as yours, but they are close.

Option 1:
Missile Size: 6.0000 MSP (15.0000 Tons) Warhead: 9 Radiation Damage: 9 Manoeuver Rating: 19
Speed: 20,867 km / s Fuel: 1,318 Flight Time: 2,400 seconds Range: 50.08 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 6.40029 Development Cost: 640
Chance to Hit: 1k km / s 396.4% 3k km / s 132.1% 5k km / s 79.3%

Option 2:
First stage
Missile Size: 6.0000 MSP (15.0000 Tons) Warhead: 0 Radiation Damage: 0 Manoeuver Rating: 10
Speed: 7,800 km / s Fuel: 575 Flight Time: 6,488 seconds Range: 50.61 Mkm
Second Stage: 4.5000 MSP
Cost Per Missile: 1.17000 Development Cost: 117

Second stage:
Missile Size: 4.5000 MSP (11.2500 Tons) Warhead: 9 Radiation Damage: 9 Manoeuver Rating: 20
Speed: 22,044 km / s Fuel: 97 Flight Time: 97 seconds Range: 2.14 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 5.58526 Development Cost: 559
Chance to Hit: 1k km / s 440.8% 3k km / s 146.9% 5k km / s 88.2%
or
Missile Size: 4.5000 MSP (11.2500 Tons)    Warhead: 9    Radiation Damage: 9    Manoeuver Rating: 14
Speed: 28,978 km/s    Fuel: 104    Flight Time: 90 seconds    Range: 2.61 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 5.82526    Development Cost: 583
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 405.6%   3k km/s 135.2%   5k km/s 81.1%

(I don't know which is better - to maximize the speed or the overall hit chance ...). Increasing maneuverability will not give a bonus to evading point defense, but will give speed, or am I wrong?

Interesting results. On the one hand, there is a difference, but the difference is in cost. On the other hand, the 9% probability of hitting the target of 5000 km is small.
Those. there is no sense without sensors with such a difference.

Let's increase the distance to 100 million km.
Well, let's try to increase the size of the warhead to 16 - I think it's good, since it penetrates 3 layers of armor, and does damage at the same time.

So, let's try to create a missile with a warhead of 16, and a distance of 100 million km:
Missile Size: 7.0000 MSP (17.5000 Tons) Warhead: 16 Radiation Damage: 16 Manoeuver Rating: 11
Speed: 18,514 km / s Fuel: 1,817 Flight Time: 5,423 seconds Range: 100.42 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 7.31027 Development Cost: 731
Chance to Hit: 1k km / s 203.6% 3k km / s 67.9% 5k km / s 40.7%

18.5 km / s, almost no maneuverability ... I don't know, maybe against large slow targets ...

Two-stage option.
First stage:
Missile Size: 7.0000 MSP (17.5000 Tons) Warhead: 0 Radiation Damage: 0 Manoeuver Rating: 10
Speed: 7,143 km / s Fuel: 600 Flight Time: 14,306 seconds Range: 102.19 Mkm
Second Stage: 5.2000 MSP
Cost Per Missile: 1.25000 Development Cost: 125

Second stage:
Missile Size: 5.2000 MSP (13.0000 Tons) Warhead: 16 Radiation Damage: 16 Manoeuver Rating: 11
Speed: 20,462 km / s Fuel: 114 Flight Time: 109 seconds Range: 2.24 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 6.71222 Development Cost: 671
Chance to Hit: 1k km / s 225.0% 3k km / s 75.0% 5k km / s 45.0%

Again, there is a difference. Not critical, not too significant, but there is. And with the improvement of the maximum engine power or maximum combat range, it grows!

But, I believe, the most significant growth is possible with the addition of active sensors, and the appearance of large rockets, inside which there will be not one, but somewhat smaller ones.
In general, the conclusion I can draw is this: the higher the level of technology, the more sense there is in two-stage rockets.

In general, all this is very interesting, I will try different options!
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 21, 2021, 07:11:12 PM
I agree, it really looks like a weak point. On the other hand, except for the situation when the largest ship inside the navy is some kind of commercial (by the way, I personally would do this in my fleet, I would also hang large sensors on it so that it shines brightly! and more engines, so that any sensors determine it as a priority)
The question is, what is the alternative?

Missiles without sensors.  :)

By the way commercial ships can only have size-1 sensors at largest, so your plan to cheese the targeting systems may not work as you hope.

Quote
If the distance between the volleys is large enough, then even if the large ship selected automatically is a useless truck, it will be destroyed rather quickly due to its low armor, and the next volleys will be redirected to other ships.
If there are no sensors, all missiles aimed at the destroyed ships will simply disappear.

Usually the way most people tend to handle this is to estimate how many missiles they need to destroy each target, and spread their fire so that each salvo is targeting a different ship. There's a few ways to do this depending on your missile doctrine but generally this is a good approach. That way, the following waves are not adversely affected by the previous waves - all missiles targeting a single ship will impact at the same time. If some ships survive, they will be badly damaged and a second wave can clean up the mess easily.

Quote
Does the error in any way relate to the second stage? Those. if you launch conventional missiles with sensors, will they fly to the point of the last target anyway, even if the target is lost?

Second stage missiles are not affected by the bug in question, and should work as expected.

Quote
I wanted to ask, by the way, what speed should I aim for ideally? I understand that the more, the better, but still, there is some optimal speed, taking into account the point defense (there seems to be 10 thousand km / s tracking), above which the return from increasing the speed does not grow too much?

In general, the more speed you can get the better as this improves the ability to avoid enemy point defense. The general rule of thumb I would follow is to select a missile design that scores 95% to 100% hit rate on your intended target (i.e. against an enemy at a specific speed), with the desired warhead and fuel range, and then once you achieve this maximize the speed while keeping all other desired characteristics.

Note that the need for speed means that the Maximum Engine Power Modifier tech line is very important for missiles. Many new players miss this key fact and end up with very slow missile designs.

Quote
Roughly speaking, which is better - 200 missiles at a speed of 30 thousand km / s or 300 at a speed of 20 thousand km / s? I understand that everything depends on the defense systems of the enemy fleet, and nevertheless?

On one hand, more missiles means you will be more likely to break through the point defense. On the other hand, more missiles usually means smaller missiles which means individual missiles will deal less damage. Generally, size doesn't correlate that much with missile speed because it really depends on all aspects of the design. Bigger warhead? Less room for a big engine. More range? More fuel, less room for an engine. Sensors? ECM/ECCM? Less room for an engine... this is why you want to optimize usually for the engine/speed, as it is the most free parameter once you select the warhead, range, target speed, etc.

Quote
HM. I used a calculator from the forum, I'm not sure if I picked up the same parameters as yours, but they are close.

That's fine, the idea is to give a very general sense of how single-stage and two-stage missiles compare.

Quote
In general, all this is very interesting, I will try different options!

This is the most important thing and much of the fun in Aurora.  :)
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 21, 2021, 07:36:19 PM
Usually the way most people tend to handle this is to estimate how many missiles they need to destroy each target, and spread their fire so that each salvo is targeting a different ship. There's a few ways to do this depending on your missile doctrine but generally this is a good approach. That way, the following waves are not adversely affected by the previous waves - all missiles targeting a single ship will impact at the same time. If some ships survive, they will be badly damaged and a second wave can clean up the mess easily.
Yes, I've thought about it, and on the one hand it seems like the smartest approach ...
On the other hand, I am sure that an ideal assessment is impossible, and there will certainly be volleys that will be wasted.
Plus there is a big risk of overdoing it and destroying a ship with one salvo, wasting most of the missiles of this salvo in vain. In general, ideally, somehow find out the capabilities of the enemy's missile defense before the launch of the main combat missiles.

Quote
In general, the more speed you can get the better as this improves the ability to avoid enemy point defense. The general rule of thumb I would follow is to select a missile design that scores 95% to 100% hit rate on your intended target (i.e. against an enemy at a specific speed), with the desired warhead and fuel range, and then once you achieve this maximize the speed while keeping all other desired characteristics.
95-100%? This means that a lot needs to be invested in maneuverability ... Doesn't it increase the likelihood of avoiding enemy missile defense?
By the way, the question is ... what happens first - the calculation of missile hits (depending on their chance of hits) or the shots of the last line of defense at 10,000 km?
Because I assume that the defense shoots first, which means that speed may be more important than maneuverability ... I wanted to clarify here)


Quote
On one hand, more missiles means you will be more likely to break through the point defense. On the other hand, more missiles usually means smaller missiles which means individual missiles will deal less damage. Generally, size doesn't correlate that much with missile speed because it really depends on all aspects of the design. Bigger warhead? Less room for a big engine. More range? More fuel, less room for an engine. Sensors? ECM/ECCM? Less room for an engine... this is why you want to optimize usually for the engine/speed, as it is the most free parameter once you select the warhead, range, target speed, etc.
[/quote]
Yes, I understand, I have already worked with the calculator. So far there are more questions than answers :)
From the category "which is better, 200 size 3 missiles with a 9 warhead, or 100 size 6 missiles with a 16" warhead, all other things being equal. I understand that it all depends on the enemy's armor and missile defense capabilities, which I can only evaluate by entering the battle.
I will try to create the best ship for protection against missiles, this will allow me to at least roughly calculate, taking into account the tonnage, how many missiles per salvo can be shot down by the NPR fleet. But, probably, there can be only one conclusion from this - you need to have 2-3 times more fleet in order to be guaranteed to have as many missiles as the enemy simply will not be able to shoot down.

You can go for a trick - before the launch of powerful missiles, fire at the enemy with many volleys of small and weak missiles in order to exhaust the enemy's anti-missile defense and at the same time find out its ABM capabilities :)
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 21, 2021, 08:10:09 PM
Yes, I've thought about it, and on the one hand it seems like the smartest approach ...
On the other hand, I am sure that an ideal assessment is impossible, and there will certainly be volleys that will be wasted.
Plus there is a big risk of overdoing it and destroying a ship with one salvo, wasting most of the missiles of this salvo in vain. In general, ideally, somehow find out the capabilities of the enemy's missile defense before the launch of the main combat missiles.

It takes practice.  ;)

Quote
95-100%? This means that a lot needs to be invested in maneuverability ... Doesn't it increase the likelihood of avoiding enemy missile defense?
By the way, the question is ... what happens first - the calculation of missile hits (depending on their chance of hits) or the shots of the last line of defense at 10,000 km?
Because I assume that the defense shoots first, which means that speed may be more important than maneuverability ... I wanted to clarify here)

At low tech levels, 100% hit rate might not be possible, so you have to decide what value you think will maximize the damage you can do, since too much agility means a slow missile that gets shot down.

Final fire from point defense beam weapons always happens before missiles strike the target. Otherwise point defense would be basically useless.


Quote
Yes, I understand, I have already worked with the calculator. So far there are more questions than answers :)

Such is Aurora.  ;)

Quote
I will try to create the best ship for protection against missiles, this will allow me to at least roughly calculate, taking into account the tonnage, how many missiles per salvo can be shot down by the NPR fleet. But, probably, there can be only one conclusion from this - you need to have 2-3 times more fleet in order to be guaranteed to have as many missiles as the enemy simply will not be able to shoot down.

The flip side is that every strategy has a counter. For example, if your enemy has too many AMM ships for you to penetrate the defenses of, this usually means they have less offensive ships, so in turn you can deploy fewer defensive ships and more offensive ships - then maybe you can break through.

It gets even more interesting when you have both missiles and beam weapons as then the possibilities multiply.

Quote
You can go for a trick - before the launch of powerful missiles, fire at the enemy with many volleys of small and weak missiles in order to exhaust the enemy's anti-missile defense and at the same time find out its ABM capabilities :)

This could work sometimes, but like all tactics there are pros and cons. For example, you still end up expending a lot of ordnance to do this, which can pose significant logistical challenges as you run through a lot more missiles which all have to be built, transported, etc.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 21, 2021, 09:01:24 PM
I still had thoughts about the concept of the struggle of war.

An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?
And the second question ... How to at least roughly calculate how many missiles, for example, with a 16 warhead are needed to destroy a ship with 3 armor?
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 21, 2021, 09:33:45 PM
An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?

Yes.

Quote
And the second question ... How to at least roughly calculate how many missiles, for example, with a 16 warhead are needed to destroy a ship with 3 armor?

It is better to think in terms of total armor rather than the thickness of the armor. A 25,000-ton ship is harder to destroy than a 5,000-ton ship after all. A general rule of thumb which works particularly well with missiles is that you need to remove ~50% of a ship's total armor before penetrating hits are regularly scored, after which the amount of internal damage needed can vary widely but you can expect a few or several dozen points of internal damage are needed. In total the damage you need to deal is probably in the range of 75% of the total armor to nearly all of it, as a practical rule of thumb.

For missiles you also need to work out about how many will be shot down by point defense fire and AMMs, which will increase the number you need to fire if you want to actually kill something. This is usually the most difficult thing to figure out in practice and will probably take some trial and error - I suggest bringing plenty of reloads...
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: ZimRathbone on November 21, 2021, 09:45:10 PM
I still had thoughts about the concept of the struggle of war.

An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?

Yes, assuming that you have the various different missiles present in your magazine, this can be done more or less on the fly, just drag the new missile onto the launcher in the combat window.  You have to do it for EACH launcher tho.

And the second question ... How to at least roughly calculate how many missiles, for example, with a 16 warhead are needed to destroy a ship with 3 armor?

Much more difficult,  firstly depends on the actual size of the target - Smaller units can suffer from shock over and above the actual warhead strength.  A 16pt WH only generates 1 internal per hit to an undamaged 3 layer armour belt (ignoring any shock effect) so its depends very much on what that gets applied to  (I have seen HMS Hood type effects when an early shot managed to hit a magazine or particularly volatile engine/power plant)  AS the armour gets more damaged more internals can get through, but generally you have to sandpaper significant portions before you are getting regular internals (I usually guess at 60-70% unless you are quite lucky)

And as pointed out by nuclearslurpee the big question is how effective the target PD is...
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 21, 2021, 09:53:01 PM
I see interesting options for conducting military operations, relying solely on missile doctrine:
1) The concept of rocket platforms. Huge ships with a speed of 500-1000, not adapted to maneuvering. Minimum armor, no beam defenses, few anti-missiles ... but maximum missile launchers.
The battle begins at a distance of 150 million km by firing rockets 1, depleting the enemy missile defense system, and starting from a distance of 100 million km - shelling the enemy with a huge mass of powerful missiles. With an enemy speed of 5000 km / s, I will have 10000s to destroy the enemy before he gets close to a distance of 50 million km.

A rocket launcher with a "reload speed of 4" and a size of 6, fires every 45 seconds, and theoretically has time to produce 200 volleys during this time. That is, theoretically, if we assume that the size of the salvo will be sufficient to inflict non-zero damage, for the time until the enemy approaches 50 million km (suppose his missiles have such a range, I’m just theorizing! :) - it will be completely destroyed.
Yes, I will spend a huge number of missiles, but only missiles, the ships will remain unharmed.
The plus is that I can supply my ships from a stationary base with missiles, or huge "missile carriers".

I see only one downside here - a huge waste of missiles = resources with a high degree of probability.

2) Everything is the same, but my ships should have a speed approximately equal to the speed of the enemy.
In this case, I will not have to send 200 volleys. It is enough to send 1 salvo to each ship, wait for the result, and then decide how many and which ships you need to shoot next.
Pros: SIGNIFICANT savings in missiles. You can also significantly reduce the distance of the start of the battle = improve the characteristics of missiles.
Cons: 1/3 or more of ship sizes will go to engines. Those. all other things being equal, the size of my salvo will be reduced by 30 percent compared to the first option. Also, the disadvantage is the inability to use huge ships to supply the combat fleet with missiles.

3) Risky option: fighting at a distance of 2-3 million km.
Pros:
 - Much more powerful / faster rockets can be used.
 - No extra volleys (= missile economy)
 “You don’t have to worry about (compared to option 2) not guessing, and enemy missiles have a greater distance than I expected.
Minuses:
 - We need a lot (probably more than half) of the tonnage of ships for missile defense systems, armor and shields in order to minimize losses from enemy missiles.

While I was writing, I came up with a couple more options:

4) The same as option 1, but the beginning of the battle is generally 200 million km away. Volleys are fired not constantly, but in turns. Ideally (if possible) - swap missiles in the process, for closer range missiles. Use two-stage rockets at a distance of up to 100 million km.

5) Applies to options 1 and 2, but especially relevant to "1". All single-stage missiles have sensors. This will allow you to launch volleys by distributing them across multiple ships, without fear that some volley will lose targets and self-destruct.
It is necessary to understand exactly what sensors are needed (as I understand it, it is necessary for the sensor to be guaranteed to be able to detect a ship of more than 5000 at a distance greater than 5 seconds of the missile's flight speed + the enemy's speed. That is, the distance is at least 125, or better than 200 thousand km.
With technology for 15000 RP - an active sensor 0.25 in size allows detecting objects from 2500 tons at a distance of 2.75 million km. With reactors of the second type, this will consume another 0.28 of the size of the reactor - it seems like a lot, but ... it is enough to increase the size of the rocket by 1, and it will become even better.

I am confident that the tactic of "aiming each subsequent salvo at a separate ship", as well as the tactic of "distributed salvos" without using missile sensors, would have resulted in a greater number of missiles destroyed in vain than a 15% decrease in volley.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 21, 2021, 10:24:22 PM
An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?

Yes.

Yes, assuming that you have the various different missiles present in your magazine, this can be done more or less on the fly, just drag the new missile onto the launcher in the combat window.  You have to do it for EACH launcher tho.

This is great, thanks!
An important clarification: do I have to have rockets of a different model in the clip of the ship that fires them, or is it enough to have them on a rocket supply ship in the same fleet?
How long will it take to transfer missiles from the missile depot ship to the warships?


If you can use this, it is very useful information! After all, it is possible, at the farthest distance, to fire at the enemy with small missiles to neutralize missile defense, then use missiles with a range of 100 million without sensors, directing missiles at individual ships, then - 80 million km - with sensors. Thus, the best missiles will remain at the end of the battle. Or maybe they won't be needed :)
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: ZimRathbone on November 22, 2021, 12:03:32 AM
An important question arose ... can I change the type of missiles during the battle? Let's say, at a distance of 100 million km - use some missiles, and at 70 million km - use others?

Yes.

Yes, assuming that you have the various different missiles present in your magazine, this can be done more or less on the fly, just drag the new missile onto the launcher in the combat window.  You have to do it for EACH launcher tho.

This is great, thanks!
An important clarification: do I have to have rockets of a different model in the clip of the ship that fires them, or is it enough to have them on a rocket supply ship in the same fleet?
How long will it take to transfer missiles from the missile depot ship to the warships?


If you can use this, it is very useful information! After all, it is possible, at the farthest distance, to fire at the enemy with small missiles to neutralize missile defense, then use missiles with a range of 100 million without sensors, directing missiles at individual ships, then - 80 million km - with sensors. Thus, the best missiles will remain at the end of the battle. Or maybe they won't be needed :)

to retask individual missile launchers, the ship needs to have the new missile types in the onboard magazine.

Ordinance can be moved from the depot ships to the fighting ships, but the rate is determined by the ordinance module(s) used.  IIRC each module can rearm 1 ship at a time, and it tends to take a number of hours per ship (exact number depending of course on the size of the magazine and the rate of resupply of the module).  For my Punishment Squadron the exercise took two Armoury class colliers (1 module each) a little less than a week to fully replenish 4 BBs 8 BCs 4 CLEs and 12 DDGs.  The colliers were pretty early tech but the missile ships had more modern magazines

Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 22, 2021, 08:48:30 AM
Ordinance can be moved from the depot ships to the fighting ships, but the rate is determined by the ordinance module(s) used.  IIRC each module can rearm 1 ship at a time, and it tends to take a number of hours per ship (exact number depending of course on the size of the magazine and the rate of resupply of the module).  For my Punishment Squadron the exercise took two Armoury class colliers (1 module each) a little less than a week to fully replenish 4 BBs 8 BCs 4 CLEs and 12 DDGs.  The colliers were pretty early tech but the missile ships had more modern magazines

Ouch. That is, even having separate ships with a large supply of missiles, my ships will not be able to use them instantly?
Somewhere on the wiki I read that they can ...
But this already changes everything.

From the wikipedia article:
Loading missiles during battle
Transferring missiles between ships or a ship and the planetary depot happens instantaneously. That might be unrealistic but feel free to exploit it by reloading your warship's magazines during battle from other ships or a dedicated ammo transport (collier). Adding a collier to a task group has the advantage of adding a lot of ammo depth while keeping your warship's size down.


This is not true? Or I misunderstood it?

If the transfer of missiles does not happen instantly, then this greatly changes the requirements for the fleet. The tactics options described earlier (implying 50-100 volleys each) disappear.
The value of each missile is greatly increased. It probably follows from this that you need to equip all missiles with sensors


Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Migi on November 22, 2021, 09:23:37 AM
Ordinance can be moved from the depot ships to the fighting ships, but the rate is determined by the ordinance module(s) used.  IIRC each module can rearm 1 ship at a time, and it tends to take a number of hours per ship (exact number depending of course on the size of the magazine and the rate of resupply of the module).  For my Punishment Squadron the exercise took two Armoury class colliers (1 module each) a little less than a week to fully replenish 4 BBs 8 BCs 4 CLEs and 12 DDGs.  The colliers were pretty early tech but the missile ships had more modern magazines

Ouch. That is, even having separate ships with a large supply of missiles, my ships will not be able to use them instantly?
Somewhere on the wiki I read that they can ...
But this already changes everything.

From the wikipedia article:
Loading missiles during battle
Transferring missiles between ships or a ship and the planetary depot happens instantaneously. That might be unrealistic but feel free to exploit it by reloading your warship's magazines during battle from other ships or a dedicated ammo transport (collier). Adding a collier to a task group has the advantage of adding a lot of ammo depth while keeping your warship's size down.


This is not true? Or I misunderstood it?

If the transfer of missiles does not happen instantly, then this greatly changes the requirements for the fleet. The tactics options described earlier (implying 50-100 volleys each) disappear.
The value of each missile is greatly increased. It probably follows from this that you need to equip all missiles with sensors

Instant transfer of fuel, maintenance supplies and missiles only applies to Aurora VB.
In Aurora C# this was changed so that you need special components and the transfer happens slowly, and you need to be stationary (until you start the underway replenishment tech line).
You should be wary of the wiki because most of the information there is from Aurora VB and it isn't clearly marked when things have changed.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 22, 2021, 11:12:44 AM
Allot of stuff have been said in this thread and I will just chime in with my own thoughts on sensors and missiles as they have been brought up.

About active sensors.... as said you only every need them for missile and beam fire-controls to lock on to a target. Active sensors are also almost always going to give away your position so you should always try not to use them at the same location of your main battle fleet if possible. You should rely on sensor scouts for most of your sensor needs. You also need to remember that you need four times the active strength to double the scanning distance, this make multiple small sensor much more powerful than big sensors.

This means that having a lot of smaller sensor crafts is generally better than a few big ones. If you are on the same tech level as that of your opponent a size 5 (250t) EM sensor will generally detect a res 1 active before the passive scout is detected by said active sensor. This means that a 250t EM sensor are relatively optimal for a small scout in those cases as they will detect any other resolution sensor at much greater distances. I generally use 300t EM sensors for my main EM scouts if possible for that very reasons, if I need to cover a bigger area I just deploy more of them. A size 1 (50t) EM sensor is enough to detect a resolution 100 sensor if that is important.

The most important thing with scouting is otherwise passive sensors and a combination of thermal and EM sensors. NPRs are not super smart so the higher their tech level the easier they are to detect as they almost always fly around at max speed. I play allot of human vs human factions games so that is allot more nuanced and dynamic which make the scouting a bit more fun.

You should always design you active sensors as a counter to what type of ships an opponent are using. If you don't have that information then you can settle on basically Res 1 and Res 80-120 for NPR as they rarely use smaller ships. Against human opponents or role-play you probably should have Res 1,5,20 and 120 or something to cover all the bases until you know more about the opponents ship configurations.

You should never engage an opponent on equal terms, that is why scouts are so important. That is also why I don't like discussing in those terms. You should simply not even fire any missiles or engaging unless you are sure you can seriously hurt your opponent, anything else just put yourself at a greater risk. This is also why I don't like the argument of overly fast engines for en entire fleet (even beam fleets)... all you need at the end of the day is a bigger stick at the right place... also, planets and colonies don't move so fast so you don't need much speed to catch them. If the opponent must retreat all the time there eventually is not more places to retreat to anyway.

When it comes to missiles then I use allot of house rules as missiles in Aurora can be quite broken at times if you don't. The best way to fight an NPR is with small crafts 500-2000t that dodge under their sensors and release missiles at medium distance. ECM is extremely effective from level 3 and up against NPRs that can't design proper AMM to counter them, you then just target their beam PD ships as the AI always build dedicated platforms so you should use that to your benefit. After that you can just pluck out their remaining ships with more effective missiles they can't shoot down with AMM. If you want to game the system a 2000-2500t missile corvette with box launchers and a commercial carrier with commercial hangars and deep magazines is the way to go. Add a good amount of fast scouts to detect the opponent and then you can strike at them at your leisure with a relatively cheap fleet. Just make sure the missile corvette have the maintenance needed for your operation as commercial carriers can't maintain them, but they will take care of deployment (if I remember correctly). Design one type of missiles to take out the PD ships and then another to take out the rest. The ones that take out the PD ships could be half size so put two in a single missile that simply split immediately once they are fired. Maybe a size 8 launcher so size 4 against the PD ships and size 8 against the rest of the fleet.
Personally I would never do any of the above as it is not fun and I develop and deploy my fleet even against NPR as if I was playing against a human opponent using the same house rules as I do. For example, in realistic terms, there would always be restriction on the surface available for launch tubes which will always make box launchers way more restrictive in real life versus say a full launcher and where the full size launcher having the reload mechanism not taking up that much space on the surface of the ship. You could argue that in space you have no restriction in geometry, but you certainly will, as it ties into things like internal structure of a ship, engine propulsion mechanics, armour and shield coverage and so much more... This is why I always restrict launchers, weapons and other components to be more balanced. There are more leeway with stations but not by much, that is why super large stations (and ships) are not very effective in my campaigns as they simply have too much internal space I can't use for weapon systems. It also is why I like hangars in ships as that give me more space to put weapons into a ship design, stations in particular.

Speed of missiles actually is important as there always is a huge risk the firing platform is intercepted otherwise, perhaps not against NPRs as much, but certainly in human vs human games there is. This is why MIRV or a slower smaller part of a missile can be a huge risk unless deployed in a smart way.

Any way... sensors on missiles is really important for a few reasons. Thermal sensors is good for making sure you don't do overkill but it also is expensive to use them so think carefully, you are probably better of calculating the rough amount of missiles needed to disable or destroy a ship without using them. Active sensors have the problem of you not being able to control which ships they will taget, that is a huge issues and they are very expensive. ECM is the mos t effective sensor system by far.

Personally I have a rule that force me to put at least 0.5 MSP of sensors (typically ECM/ECCM) on any medium to long range ASM missile and 0.25 on any AMM, anti-FAC/Fighter or CQB missile or none to early really short ranged AMM missiles. But that is a house rule to represent the control and communications of any missile that the game really don't model.

From a game perspective using the mechanic as they are then full size launchers are really bad as they can easily be countered with beam PD and a small amount of AMM or in some cases just beam PD. The other issue in the game is the scaling of the Manoeuvre stat, I always flatten that curve in the DB so missiles remain roughly in the same shape throughout the game, making AMM more usable earlier in the game and not OP later on.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 22, 2021, 12:07:42 PM
The question is off topic ... what does it mean to play with "human opponents"?
There is no multiplayer option (I can't even imagine how to implement it normally) or something like that.

Or are there several options for the type of AI?
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 22, 2021, 12:42:54 PM
When it comes to missiles then I use allot of house rules as missiles in Aurora can be quite broken at times if you don't. The best way to fight an NPR is with small crafts 500-2000t that dodge under their sensors and release missiles at medium distance. ECM is extremely effective from level 3 and up against NPRs that can't design proper AMM to counter them, you then just target their beam PD ships as the AI always build dedicated platforms so you should use that to your benefit. After that you can just pluck out their remaining ships with more effective missiles they can't shoot down with AMM. If you want to game the system a 2000-2500t missile corvette with box launchers and a commercial carrier with commercial hangars and deep magazines is the way to go. Add a good amount of fast scouts to detect the opponent and then you can strike at them at your leisure with a relatively cheap fleet. Just make sure the missile corvette have the maintenance needed for your operation as commercial carriers can't maintain them, but they will take care of deployment (if I remember correctly). Design one type of missiles to take out the PD ships and then another to take out the rest. The ones that take out the PD ships could be half size so put two in a single missile that simply split immediately once they are fired. Maybe a size 8 launcher so size 4 against the PD ships and size 8 against the rest of the fleet.
I don't really want to use mechanics that use a "dishonest" way of dealing with AI based on knowledge of its algorithms ...

And yet, here I do not understand everything.
1) How to understand which of the enemy ships are anti-missile? By mass? Or by first firing at them?
How do I understand how much the enemy has in general to destroy missiles?
2) What is the best way to estimate in advance how many missiles I will need in a salvo? I looked at the ship designs on the wiki, and I can conclude that on average 6000t anti-missile ships are capable of shooting down about 10 missiles / salvo (in their worst case).
Is it possible to somehow determine in advance how many% of the enemy ships are anti-missile?
Roughly speaking, I know that the enemy's fleet is 200 thousand tons. Based on this, can I roughly understand what size of a salvo will be sufficient?
3) Why are 2000-2500t missile corvettes a good choice?
As I understand it, the larger the ship, the more profitable it is to place many things on it. For example, armor, shields.
The only possible plus of small missile corvettes is that if the enemy has few missile salvos, and they are large, then many enemy missiles will be wasted.

But, if instead of 100 corvettes there are 4 missile cruisers of 50,000 in size, and 10 missile defense ships - 5,000 tons each - then there may not be any losses at all, due to powerful missile defense and armor.

The idea of ​​a rocket that instantly splits into two is very interesting! How to set them up correctly? Is the separation radius greater than the fire distance?
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 22, 2021, 12:52:59 PM
The question is off topic ... what does it mean to play with "human opponents"?
There is no multiplayer option (I can't even imagine how to implement it normally) or something like that.

Or are there several options for the type of AI?

It is possible to control multiple player races by a single human player (yourself). It sounds like an awkward idea if you are not used to it (most modern strategic games do not support this) but once you get used to the idea it is a fun and unique way to play. The trick is, you have to not just play to "win" but rather roleplay and ask yourself how each race would behave in each situation instead of always doing what is "best" or most optimal.

Setting this up is as simple as starting the game with more than 1 player race, or at any time in an ongoing campaign activating SM mode and using the "Create Race" button in the system view window. There is also a checkbox in the Events window, if you leave SM mode on, which shows events from all player-controlled races so you will not miss notifications.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: bankshot on November 22, 2021, 12:55:55 PM
I'm just getting my fleet started but you may find my doctrine useful so here it is:

Currently I'm at going beam-only but will eventually design missile ships.  My shipyards can handle up to 19,200 tons which I'm designating as "Light Cruisers".  CLs all share the same size, engines, speed, and shields.  Each fleet will consist of the following:

One Command cruiser:  Jump drive, flag bridge, one of each size 4.5 sensor (EM, Thermal, Res1, Res 6, Res 20, res 120).  4K tons of Hangar deck space. 
This ship is the jump tender, command/control ship, and homebase for my scout fighters.  The res1 sensor is for advanced warning of incoming missiles.  1 small cryo berth for picking up escape pods.

8x 500t scout fighters, 2 each with size 4.5 sensors (Thermal, Res6, Res20, Res120).  Res 6 detects fighters, Res 20 for FACs, and res 120 for large ships.  The fighters move at 5200 where the fleet moves at 4000.  They are expendable sensor platforms - fairly cheap to replace and they don't give away the fleet's location if detected. 

Six Beam cruisers: each with a res1 sensor for targeting.  With a mix of lasers for offense and gauss cannons for point defense/fighter swatting.

Once I start producing missiles I'll add

Three AMM ships:  Size 4.5 res1 sensor, Size 1 fast reload launchers, and magazines

Six ASM ships:  Size 5 20x slow reload launchers, magazines, one size 4.5 sensor either res 6, 20, or 120. 

By making the magazine size the same between the two missile carriers I may be able to have one shipyard churn out both types.


2x collier - commercial magazines and ordinance transfer systems
2x tanker/tug/supply ship - refueling system, tractor beam, one shuttle bay, and a few large maintenance storage units
2x fighter transport - commercial hangars

Two of each so one can stay on station while the other heads home if additional resupply is needed. 


If you have sufficient range and speed on your AMMs/Res1 sensors you can have time to launch multiple AMM volleys against each incoming salvo, which will let keep both leaks and wasted missiles to a minimum. 

For salvo estimation - well, see how many missiles your AMM ships can handle and that's probably about how many the NPR can, assuming they are the same size as yours.  From a practical point of view if you have the range advantage you could launch once then keep the range open and watch to see how successful it was, then tune subsequent volleys accordingly. 

Note:  I haven't fought a missile engagement yet in C#, so you'd likely be better off listening to advice from others on the thread who have experience in those things. 
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Kelewan on November 22, 2021, 04:35:15 PM
I don't really want to use mechanics that use a "dishonest" way of dealing with AI based on knowledge of its algorithms ...

And yet, here I do not understand everything.
1) How to understand which of the enemy ships are anti-missile? By mass? Or by first firing at them?
How do I understand how much the enemy has in general to destroy missiles?

by them firing at your missiles (so yes, you have the fire at them first). If you detect the ship/salvo with your active sensors the event log will tell you which ship fired which weapons.
even if you only detect the AMM after they where fired you will see the missiles grouped by salvos (e.g. if you see 5 events "Size 1 Missile x11",  and 3 events "Size 1 Missile x5",
I would look if there is a class with 5 ships and a class with 3 ships at the origin point. There are cases where the enemy will not fire full salvos, but you can deduce some hints
in most cases.

2) What is the best way to estimate in advance how many missiles I will need in a salvo? I looked at the ship designs on the wiki, and I can conclude that on average 6000t anti-missile ships are capable of shooting down about 10 missiles / salvo (in their worst case).
Is it possible to somehow determine in advance how many% of the enemy ships are anti-missile?
Roughly speaking, I know that the enemy's fleet is 200 thousand tons. Based on this, can I roughly understand what size of a salvo will be sufficient?

You can't rely estimate the capabilities of your enemy without fighting:

Some information can be deduced by observing the enemy (speed of enemy ships, indicate engine tech => missile speed)

3) Why are 2000-2500t missile corvettes a good choice?
As I understand it, the larger the ship, the more profitable it is to place many things on it. For example, armor, shields.
The only possible plus of small missile corvettes is that if the enemy has few missile salvos, and they are large, then many enemy missiles will be wasted.

But, if instead of 100 corvettes there are 4 missile cruisers of 50,000 in size, and 10 missile defense ships - 5,000 tons each - then there may not be any losses at all, due to powerful missile defense and armor.

The idea of ​​a rocket that instantly splits into two is very interesting! How to set them up correctly? Is the separation radius greater than the fire distance?
Bigger ships are more efficient in many cases, but the idea is to fire the missiles without being detected.
A 2500t ship is much harder to detect as a bigger ships, especially if the enemy has no sensors searching for small ships
   

Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Andrew on November 22, 2021, 05:18:07 PM
Firing 100 substantial missile volleys in a war will be decisive. It will destroy the economy of the side launching them.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 22, 2021, 06:03:32 PM

I don't really want to use mechanics that use a "dishonest" way of dealing with AI based on knowledge of its algorithms ...

And yet, here I do not understand everything.
1) How to understand which of the enemy ships are anti-missile? By mass? Or by first firing at them?
How do I understand how much the enemy has in general to destroy missiles?
2) What is the best way to estimate in advance how many missiles I will need in a salvo? I looked at the ship designs on the wiki, and I can conclude that on average 6000t anti-missile ships are capable of shooting down about 10 missiles / salvo (in their worst case).
Is it possible to somehow determine in advance how many% of the enemy ships are anti-missile?
Roughly speaking, I know that the enemy's fleet is 200 thousand tons. Based on this, can I roughly understand what size of a salvo will be sufficient?
3) Why are 2000-2500t missile corvettes a good choice?
As I understand it, the larger the ship, the more profitable it is to place many things on it. For example, armor, shields.
The only possible plus of small missile corvettes is that if the enemy has few missile salvos, and they are large, then many enemy missiles will be wasted.

But, if instead of 100 corvettes there are 4 missile cruisers of 50,000 in size, and 10 missile defense ships - 5,000 tons each - then there may not be any losses at all, due to powerful missile defense and armor.

The idea of ​​a rocket that instantly splits into two is very interesting! How to set them up correctly? Is the separation radius greater than the fire distance?

1. You have to test you opponents capabilities to know what will be the most efficient way to engage them. If you engage without knowing their capabilities it can go pretty bad for you. You will get confirmation on the type of weapons system the opponent use as they use them, that will tell you what to target and how to do it in the future.

2 & 3. This comes down to your ability to engage without being engaged at the same time and why I suggested about 2000t as a good size. This is a size that can quite easily fly under the radar of NPR sensors. This means you can engage them without them having a chance to retaliate, this give you options. And yes bigger ships is better in general but not for all purposes, it is not all about efficiency.
It will be really hard to hide a 50kt missile cruiser that can't dodge enemy sensors and provide a much bigger thermal imprint. A carrier can be much further from the action, that is the whole idea with that doctrine.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 22, 2021, 06:13:05 PM
by them firing at your missiles (so yes, you have the fire at them first). If you detect the ship/salvo with your active sensors the event log will tell you which ship fired which weapons.
even if you only detect the AMM after they where fired you will see the missiles grouped by salvos (e.g. if you see 5 events "Size 1 Missile x11",  and 3 events "Size 1 Missile x5",
I would look if there is a class with 5 ships and a class with 3 ships at the origin point. There are cases where the enemy will not fire full salvos, but you can deduce some hints
in most cases.
1. Hmm. In this case, I will need sensors that can detect missiles at a short distance. Either the missiles will need to be equipped with sensors capable of detecting anti-missile defenses, or somehow a small sensor ship capable of detecting missiles will need to be placed near the enemy.

You can't rely estimate the capabilities of your enemy without fighting:
  • You need the know the speed of the enemy AMM,  the enemy AMM salvos size, the number of enemy AMM ships and how many often the enemy fleet can fire AMM at your salvos, to estimate how many of your missiles will survive the enemy AMMs
  • You need to know the number of enemy beam PD-Ships, the number of PD shots per ship, and the to-hit-chance for each weapon, to estimate how many of you missiles will survive the beam PD
  • You need to know the to-hit-chance of your missiles, the number of armor of the enemy ships

Some information can be deduced by observing the enemy (speed of enemy ships, indicate engine tech => missile speed)
2. I believe that having started a war, it will be too late to conduct reconnaissance. Therefore, I do not see any way to figure out this information, other than saving / loading.
After all, if I start a battle (it does not matter, the whole fleet, or a small "reconnaissance" part of it) - war will be declared, NPR knows where my home system is ... If it turns out that my forces are not enough - the enemy will destroy me.


Bigger ships are more efficient in many cases, but the idea is to fire the missiles without being detected.
A 2500t ship is much harder to detect as a bigger ships, especially if the enemy has no sensors searching for small ships
3. The idea is really interesting. This, in fact, provides the same benefits as long range fire, at which the enemy will not reach me.
The only question is, at what distance can the enemy planet detect ships of 2500 tons?
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 22, 2021, 09:35:46 PM
Something the situation is starting to cause concern in me.
1. First, I am not doing well with diplomacy.
I created diplomatic ships, but when I send them to the NPR-owned system, they ask me to leave and the relationship falls. I do not understand what kind of action I have to take in order for the relationship to begin to improve.

2. I see that NPR has a huge fleet on its launch system. This is a total of over 100 ships. Most of them have a tonnage of about 21 thousand tons. I'm not sure if they are all military or civilian, but if at least a third of them are military, I have no idea how to resist such a fleet.
I started out on the default "traditional empire" setting, and it's been 39 years since I started. I am still colonizing - building mines and factories, and trying to increase resource extraction.


And what is better in the future to destroy enemy commercial ships?
I suppose spending conventional missiles on them, the same as on warships, is too expensive.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 23, 2021, 08:32:40 AM
Something the situation is starting to cause concern in me.
1. First, I am not doing well with diplomacy.
I created diplomatic ships, but when I send them to the NPR-owned system, they ask me to leave and the relationship falls. I do not understand what kind of action I have to take in order for the relationship to begin to improve.

2. I see that NPR has a huge fleet on its launch system. This is a total of over 100 ships. Most of them have a tonnage of about 21 thousand tons. I'm not sure if they are all military or civilian, but if at least a third of them are military, I have no idea how to resist such a fleet.
I started out on the default "traditional empire" setting, and it's been 39 years since I started. I am still colonizing - building mines and factories, and trying to increase resource extraction.


And what is better in the future to destroy enemy commercial ships?
I suppose spending conventional missiles on them, the same as on warships, is too expensive.

Make sure your Diplomacy ship have commercial engines and is about 10kt or less, that would mean it have no impact on negative diplomacy.

Well, you should be able to simply avoid them by making sure you don't encroach on their territory until you have a large and powerful fleet. That NPR also quite often divide their fleet into smaller parts so you can defeat it in detail. The issue with NPR is that it is not very good at scouting versus a human, so you should be able to deal with it eventually. But it might take some time and patience.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 23, 2021, 09:30:53 AM
Make sure your Diplomacy ship have commercial engines and is about 10kt or less, that would mean it have no impact on negative diplomacy.

Well, you should be able to simply avoid them by making sure you don't encroach on their territory until you have a large and powerful fleet. That NPR also quite often divide their fleet into smaller parts so you can defeat it in detail. The issue with NPR is that it is not very good at scouting versus a human, so you should be able to deal with it eventually. But it might take some time and patience.
My diplomatic ship has commercial engines, 1 diplomacy module, 1 sensor size 1 each ... I can't imagine how you can make it even smaller.
Although ... you can put a smaller engine with less fuel efficiency ...
But I have already decided that it would be better to fight. But later.
At the expense of the division of the NPR fleet - according to my observations, almost all of their fleet is concentrated around their planet. I can't imagine how I could split it.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 23, 2021, 09:35:51 AM
Make sure your Diplomacy ship have commercial engines and is about 10kt or less, that would mean it have no impact on negative diplomacy.

Well, you should be able to simply avoid them by making sure you don't encroach on their territory until you have a large and powerful fleet. That NPR also quite often divide their fleet into smaller parts so you can defeat it in detail. The issue with NPR is that it is not very good at scouting versus a human, so you should be able to deal with it eventually. But it might take some time and patience.
My diplomatic ship has commercial engines, 1 diplomacy module, 1 sensor size 1 each ... I can't imagine how you can make it even smaller.

FYI there is a UI bug where even if a diplomatic ship is acceptable and causing a net positive gain of relations, the event message may indicate that it is having a negative effect. As long as your ship is under 10k tons (technically 11k tons, actually) it should be fine. If the NPR is actually upset then you should see an escalation of severity in the event messages over time which is your clue to bug out.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 23, 2021, 09:59:50 AM
I think I can already start building my fleet.
Question: do I understand correctly that I do not need to have a weapon guidance system on a ship with a weapon?
Can I use some ships as fire control systems and others as weapon platforms?

I am planning something like this:
Battle fleet (can be scaled!):
10 heavy missile cruisers - 30 thousand each. t. with rocket launchers of size 7 and armor 4, a stock of missiles for 20-30 volleys.
6 missile defense destroyers - 8-10 thousand tons each - with rocket launchers of size 1, armor 3 - a stock of missiles for 100 volleys (I will use them for reconnaissance by shelling.
3 missile defense destroyers with Gaussian turrets + active sensors of maximum size.
1 destroyer with passive sensors of maximum size (resolutions 1 and 100)

Reconnaissance fleet (combat support):
1 aircraft carrier destroyer - for small reconnaissance ships of 500 and 250t (4 reconnaissance ships of 500t and 4,250t - half have active sensors, half have thermal ones).
4 scouts 2500t each with active sensors. 2 - with heat.

Supply fleet:
A huge station equipped with a refueling hub, a stock of missiles, a repair hub - 400-500 tons. You can add CIWS and armor to it.
5 tug tankers, 60 thousand tons each, with 2 million tons of fuel in each (I already have them).

Invasion Fleet: Transport ships capable of carrying a 1M army.

I thought I could expand the shipyard to 50 tons. so, and make missile cruisers bigger, but I suppose it's better to start building them earlier ...

Also not sure what to do with the enemy's commercial shipping.
If I take over enemy planets, their ships won't be mine, will they?
Should you create a small corvette fleet to deal with enemy commercial ships?
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 23, 2021, 10:27:34 AM
I think I can already start building my fleet.
Question: do I understand correctly that I do not need to have a weapon guidance system on a ship with a weapon?
Can I use some ships as fire control systems and others as weapon platforms?

Every weapon requires a fire control on the same ship. You can assign multiple weapons to the same fire control (unless it is a single-weapon control, of course), but the weapon and fire control have to be on the same ship.

However, the Active Sensor used to identify and spot targets can be on any ship. As long as one ship of your race has a sensor lock then all ships of your race can fire at the target if they are in range.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 23, 2021, 11:27:01 AM
Every weapon requires a fire control on the same ship. You can assign multiple weapons to the same fire control (unless it is a single-weapon control, of course), but the weapon and fire control have to be on the same ship.

However, the Active Sensor used to identify and spot targets can be on any ship. As long as one ship of your race has a sensor lock then all ships of your race can fire at the target if they are in range.
Hmm ... apparently I was misinformed again by the outdated wikipedia ...
Do I understand correctly that 1 fire control system provides the ability to produce 1 salvo?
And if I have large-tonnage missile cruisers, do I need several fire control systems on them so that I can distribute volleys from 10 of my ships to 20 enemy ones?

And another question: will it not be too costly if I first build a fleet of missile ships without a fire control system, and then, by re-equipment, add it to them?
The fact is that I already have the technologies of rocket launchers, armor and engines, but good sensor technologies have not yet been researched.


In general, I would like to make it so that I can easily convert my ships with minimal cost.
This I like the rocket option: I can use ships with old rocket launchers, replacing only the rockets. Looks economical (if you forget about the price of rockets :)).
That's why I researched good engines and armor in the beginning, leaving the research of missiles and sensors for later.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 23, 2021, 11:34:11 AM
Hmm ... apparently I was misinformed again by the outdated wikipedia ...

In general with the wiki, it is less "outdated" and more that the information is for two different games: VB6 and C# versions. The pages which have C#-specific information are labeled as such, and unlabeled pages are usually VB6 information. Much of the VB6 information is still relevant, but always check the pages labeled for C# first and only use the VB6 information as a fallback option.

Quote
Do I understand correctly that 1 fire control system provides the ability to produce 1 salvo?

Yes.

Quote
And if I have large-tonnage missile cruisers, do I need several fire control systems on them so that I can distribute volleys from 10 of my ships to 20 enemy ones?

This is a good idea.

Quote
And another question: will it not be too costly if I first build a fleet of missile ships without a fire control system, and then, by re-equipment, add it to them?
The fact is that I already have the technologies of rocket launchers, armor and engines, but good sensor technologies have not yet been researched.

This will work, but I recommend putting fire controls on the ships when you build them, even if you replace them later. Researching MFCs is fairly cheap and this way your ships will be able to participate in combat if needed before you can refit.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 23, 2021, 05:12:29 PM
If I make a two-stage rocket that splits immediately after firing (i.e. splits immediately more than the distance at which it will initially be from the enemy) - will this work fine?
I read in some thread that someone ran into a bug that the missiles were not separated in the end, and the first stage continued to fly towards the target ..
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 23, 2021, 05:15:27 PM
If I make a two-stage rocket that splits immediately after firing (i.e. splits immediately more than the distance at which it will initially be from the enemy) - will this work fine?
I read in some thread that someone ran into a bug that the missiles were not separated in the end, and the first stage continued to fly towards the target ..

I have not used this in C# but it used to work in VB6 version of Aurora... the only way to know for sure would be to test it.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 24, 2021, 11:44:08 AM
1. I need non-rocket warships to combat enemy commercial shipping and small fleets.
These will be fast (7-8 thousand km / s) 10 thousand. ton destroyers.
The question is, what kind of offensive weapon should I arm them with? So far, apart from missiles, only Gauss cannons have been researched a little. Are they suitable for my tasks? Or do you need to invest at least 10-20 thousand RP in, for example, railguns?
Weapon objectives:
 - Destruction of commercial ships.
 - Destruction of the unfinished remnants of the enemy fleet (for which it would be a pity to waste missiles).
 - It is desirable - that I with this fleet could carry out support for ground forces / orbital bombardment.
And are turrets needed in this case, if the speed of the ships will exceed the speed of the enemy?

Then again questions about intelligence and sensors.
2. What sensors does NPR usually have in its 50th year of play?
I need a ship that is small enough not to be detected by enemy gravity sensors, while still being able to detect enemy warships with thermal sensors.
Which ship is better to prefer?

3. Does it make sense to create 250-500t fighters filled with sensors? Or ships of 2000-2500 tons of tonnage are quite suitable?
4. Which table for calculating the range of sensors is correct?
I saw a topic on the forum where such a table was discussed, but wrote about the changes and its relevance.
I would be grateful for the link!)
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: ArcWolf on November 24, 2021, 01:35:34 PM
1. I need non-rocket warships to combat enemy commercial shipping and small fleets.
These will be fast (7-8 thousand km / s) 10 thousand. ton destroyers.
The question is, what kind of offensive weapon should I arm them with? So far, apart from missiles, only Gauss cannons have been researched a little. Are they suitable for my tasks? Or do you need to invest at least 10-20 thousand RP in, for example, railguns?
Weapon objectives:
 - Destruction of commercial ships.
 - Destruction of the unfinished remnants of the enemy fleet (for which it would be a pity to waste missiles).
 - It is desirable - that I with this fleet could carry out support for ground forces / orbital bombardment.
And are turrets needed in this case, if the speed of the ships will exceed the speed of the enemy?

My If you only need weapons to destroy commercial ships and you don't want to waist missiles, i would recommend Plasma Carronades. The first one, 15cm i think, dose 6 damage and will pen 3 layers of armor. Most commercial ships only have 1 layer.

For cleaning up disabled enemy ships, you can still use Plasma carronades, but their biggest drawback is range, and just because a ship is disabled dose not mean it can not shoot back, so longer range weapons like railguns or laser would be my recommendation. That said, Plasma Carronades will still work perfectly fine. Plasma carronades have the added benefit of being the cheapest beam weapon to research, and you only need the first tech level.

side note, if you are going all missiles you probably want to research plasma carronades anyway for STOs and to increase your ground force racial damage.

Quote
3. Does it make sense to create 250-500t fighters filled with sensors? Or ships of 2000-2500 tons of tonnage are quite suitable?
4. Which table for calculating the range of sensors is correct?
I saw a topic on the forum where such a table was discussed, but wrote about the changes and its relevance.
I would be grateful for the link!)

3) yes i believe it is and i use sensor fighters all the time in addition to dedicated sensor ships. My dedicated sensor ships might have 2-3k tons of sensors alone, but that's my design preference.

4) https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102701#msg102701
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: Entaro on November 24, 2021, 02:20:52 PM
My If you only need weapons to destroy commercial ships and you don't want to waist missiles, i would recommend Plasma Carronades. The first one, 15cm i think, dose 6 damage and will pen 3 layers of armor. Most commercial ships only have 1 layer.

For cleaning up disabled enemy ships, you can still use Plasma carronades, but their biggest drawback is range, and just because a ship is disabled dose not mean it can not shoot back, so longer range weapons like railguns or laser would be my recommendation. That said, Plasma Carronades will still work perfectly fine. Plasma carronades have the added benefit of being the cheapest beam weapon to research, and you only need the first tech level.

side note, if you are going all missiles you probably want to research plasma carronades anyway for STOs and to increase your ground force racial damage.


3) yes i believe it is and i use sensor fighters all the time in addition to dedicated sensor ships. My dedicated sensor ships might have 2-3k tons of sensors alone, but that's my design preference.

4) https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102701#msg102701

1. I have a question about combat mechanics ...
Do I understand correctly that the accuracy of energy and kinetic weapons is related to the ratio of the speed of my ship and that of the enemy? Accordingly, if I want to make small effective melee ships, they must be fast - presumably 7-8 thousand km / s?
Will this speed be taken into account when firing if I order my ships to get as close as possible to shoot the enemy?

Plasma carronades are an interesting idea ... to be honest, I was thinking about railguns at first (after reading the wiki article) - they seem to do the maximum damage / s per unit of weight. However, on the other hand, carronades give maximum damage per shot, especially at the closest possible distance.
In this regard, the question. Will I be able to give the order "to be at a distance of 10000 km" from the enemy in order to shoot closely?


3. Thank you ... the only thing I don't like about the idea with fighters is the need to create a carrier for them (

4. Thank you very much, I saw it!) But I did not find the Excel table with the calculation ...
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: ArcWolf on November 24, 2021, 05:37:49 PM

1. I have a question about combat mechanics ...
Do I understand correctly that the accuracy of energy and kinetic weapons is related to the ratio of the speed of my ship and that of the enemy? Accordingly, if I want to make small effective melee ships, they must be fast - presumably 7-8 thousand km / s?
Will this speed be taken into account when firing if I order my ships to get as close as possible to shoot the enemy?

Your accuracy is calculated based on range, target speed and your racial tracking speed (researched under Sensors and Controls systems, and can be found by looking at your ground forces window, it's along the top). Hull mounted weapons use either your tracking speed or ships speed, which ever is fastest. However your fire control only uses your tracking speed. So having your ships speed be greater then 4x your tracking speed will not improve accuracy, but will make your ships harder to hit.

Quote
Plasma carronades are an interesting idea ... to be honest, I was thinking about railguns at first (after reading the wiki article) - they seem to do the maximum damage / s per unit of weight. However, on the other hand, carronades give maximum damage per shot, especially at the closest possible distance.
In this regard, the question. Will I be able to give the order "to be at a distance of 10000 km" from the enemy in order to shoot closely?
I too like railguns, but if you are concerned about RP cost and do not want to heavily invest into beam weapons, plasma area good option.

Yes, you can give a fleet an order to "Follow" (an enemy contact) and set the range to be 10,000 KM and they will keep that range while firing.

Quote
3. Thank you ... the only thing I don't like about the idea with fighters is the need to create a carrier for them (


You do not need dedicated carriers for scout fighters. I like to draw inspiration for my ship designs from Halo and WW2 ships. So i often have small hangers on my cruisers and battleships big enough to carry 1 or 2 scout fighters. With 4 cruisers in a squadron i have 4-8 scout fighters that can be deployed. My scout destroyer, which i have at least 1 in every fleet, also carries a scout fighter.

Off-Topic: show
Sentinel class Cruiser      24,664 tons       729 Crew       5,174.1 BP       TCS 493    TH 4,032    EM 2,760
8174 km/s      Armour 9-75       Shields 92-460       HTK 153      Sensors 6/0/0/0      DCR 25      PPV 105.74
Maint Life 1.73 Years     MSP 2,966    AFR 324%    IFR 4.5%    1YR 1,207    5YR 18,106    Max Repair 1008 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     Cryogenic Berths 400   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 10    Morale Check Required   

M70-E2016 CA MPD (2)    Power 4032    Fuel Use 98.58%    Signature 2016    Explosion 18%
Fuel Capacity 2,250,000 Litres    Range 16.7 billion km (23 days at full power)
Class 15-D Shield Array (2)     Recharge Time 460 seconds (0.2 per second)

Series 2 MAC A26M1 (1)    Range 256,000km     TS: 8,174 km/s     Power 26-4     RM 40,000 km    ROF 35       
Twin 8" Naval Coilgun Turret (5x2)    Range 256,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 20-8     RM 40,000 km    ROF 15       
Quad Gauss A4-17M1 Turret (3x16)    Range 10,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10,000 km    ROF 5       
PD BFC R64-TS16k (1)     Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
MAC FC R256-TS8.4k (1)     Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 8,400 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Coilgun BFC 256-12k (2)     Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
SFR-25 (2)     Total Power Output 50.6    Exp 5%

AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.7m km    MCR 157.3k km    Resolution 1
TH1-6 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km

ECM 10

Strike Group
1x Cat's Eye Recon Fighter   Speed: 12038 km/s    Size: 9.83

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes

Off-Topic: show
Cat's Eye class Recon Fighter      492 tons       18 Crew       168.9 BP       TCS 10    TH 59    EM 0
12038 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/6/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 1.64 Years     MSP 21    AFR 19%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 9    5YR 138    Max Repair 88.8 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

R3.7-E118 MPD (1)    Power 118.4    Fuel Use 557.99%    Signature 59.20    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 14,000 Litres    Range 0.92 billion km (21 hours at full power)

AS51-R100 (1)     GPS 6400     Range 51.3m km    Resolution 100
EM1-6 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a a for auto-assignment purposes
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: dsedrez on November 24, 2021, 07:12:28 PM
Wow long thread so I'm here focusing on the first topics, some points I don't think were addressed yet (if they were plz forgive me).

Oh my you like efficiency. . .  I can relate.  But that's the reason why I tend to prefer beams.  Well, when I use missiles, which is not often, I tend to use my extremely efficient design: a first-stage manned missile (aka fighter or FAC), which needs no sensors, just a simple fire control and a cheap engine, can change targets as needed, can evade incoming missiles (and even shoot them down if escorted) and you can reuse it later!

Or as mentioned by others, a small corvette or frigate with a single fire control, a few missile launchers and a small magazine.

Seriously, sensors on a missile, except for very specialized designs, look like a waste for me.  I send my missile ships with a specialist sensor scout (and a few PD fighters for antimissile defense), so I need very few sensors overall, and they can be bigger.  My range for antiship missile combat is between 30m-50m km max.  Well, I tend to play with low/slow tech, I don't know how much it changes at higher tech levels.

A few notes on missiles:

1.  your sensor on the 1st stage may be able to switch (randomly) to another target if the first is destroyed, but AFAIK you'll also need sensors on *every* second stage missile, because the 1st stage can't guide them;

2.  your 1st stage need not have *any* space allocated for agility, it's completely useless unless you actually intend to hit something with it.  It doesn't affect survival rate against AMMs or PD;

3.  the larger your missile, the farther away it'll be detected;

4.  on a two-stage missile, a slow 1st stage with a shorter separation distance will probably be a sitting duck for the antimissile missiles (AMMs) your enemy will surely fire at them as soon as they're detected.

A last note: taking advantage of the last point, I'll try a new design in my current game, which is a two-stage missile, whose 1st stage is exactly twice as fast as my attack fleet.  The second stage, with 3 sz1 missiles, is as fast an antiship missile as I can make it, with minimal warhead and no agility, and the separation distance is at least 50% greater than the distance I estimate the 1st stage would be intercepted by the enemy AAMs.  No sensors in either of them.  There'd be volleys every 5 secs.  The idea is to have the enemy fire on the missiles as they approach, then lose the salvos as the 2nd stages separate.  So the enemy fleet has to fire again on the more numerous second stages.  Meanwhile my beam fleet is coming into range, and whatever ASMs they fire against my fleet can be more easily stopped by my PD than the masses of AMMs the NPRs would otherwise tend to fire at my ships.  Therefore, if my missiles evade the interception and hit the targets all the better, but their main reason to exist is to harrass and distract the enemy while I get into range with my beam ships. . .  let's see if *this* plan survives contact with the enemy.

On the AI targeting: from what I know, they'll attack not the largest ship, but the one with the largest EM signature (shields, sensors), if they don't know anything else.  Once they do know, they're pretty smart and will target your PD ships, for example.  You can't make them attack a commercial design: they'll know it's commercial from the engines and will tend to ignore them while there are armed ships around.

Quote from: Entaro link=topic=12831. msg157033#msg157033 date=1637785252

1.  I have a question about combat mechanics . . .
Do I understand correctly that the accuracy of energy and kinetic weapons is related to the ratio of the speed of my ship and that of the enemy? Accordingly, if I want to make small effective melee ships, they must be fast - presumably 7-8 thousand km / s?
Will this speed be taken into account when firing if I order my ships to get as close as possible to shoot the enemy?


the basic rule is rather between the tracking speed of your beam fire control and your target's speed.  If the target is faster than the BFC tracking speed, the to hit chance is reduced accordingly.  If you use boosted tracking speed in your BFCs, the tracking speed will rather be the maximum between you ship's speed and the BFC's.  Unless you use turrets, when it's the turret's speed that's relevant.
Title: Re: Sensor design, questions from a beginner
Post by: nuclearslurpee on November 24, 2021, 11:13:49 PM
1. I have a question about combat mechanics ...
Do I understand correctly that the accuracy of energy and kinetic weapons is related to the ratio of the speed of my ship and that of the enemy? Accordingly, if I want to make small effective melee ships, they must be fast - presumably 7-8 thousand km / s?

Beam weapon accuracy is influenced by:
The best way to design effective beam ships is usually to match the fire control speed to the opposition you expect to face. You can try to design a "faster" BFC for future-proofing, but often this ends up being wasted resources and tonnage if you never actually fight such an opponent. If you want to future-proof your BFCs in case of running into a new higher-tech opponent, my suggestion is to aim for about 25% higher tracking speed than your current opponent(s) ship speeds, since engine techs usually improve by about 25% at each level.