Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 21, 2010, 01:29:39 PM
All active sensors and fire control will be divided into broadband and narrowband sensors. The existing sensor model is the broadband version, so every Aurora sensor created up to this point is a broadband sensor and will continue to work in exactly the same way. A narrowband sensor is designed in the same way, except for changing the broadband/narrrowband option, but can only detect objects (such as ships, shipyards, mineral packets, etc.) that have a size between the sensor resolution and the sensor resolution +5. In other words, a narrowband sensor with a resolution of 100 can only detect targets with a size of between 100 and 105. Anything outside that range is totally invisible to the sensor. To compensate, a narrowband sensor has five times the range of a broadband sensor. The only restriction is that resolution 2 is the lowest resolution for a broadband sensor. Resolution 1 is already handled by the resolution zero mode. For the purposes of consistency, I may make resolution zero mode a narrowband sensor that operates from 0.01 to 1.
While the new narrowband mode will not be that useful for larger resolutions, it will be very useful for low resolution ranges such as 15-20 or 3-8. As an example, here is a comparison between broadband and narrowband sensors designed to detect fighters. They are both size 10 and use active sensor 21/EM 11 tech. As you can use, the first one is not really very useful but the second gives the ship a reasonable detection range against fighters. The narrowband sensor won't be able to detect anything else though except fighters of 200 tons to 450 tons. Fire controls also have broadband and narrowband options to you can still match fire controls to active sensors.
Code: [Select]
Broadband Sensor
Active Sensor Strength: 210 Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 10 HS Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 4 Maximum Range: 9,240,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 210 Crew: 50Code: [Select]
Narrowband Sensor
Active Sensor Strength: 210 Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 10 HS Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 4 to 9 Maximum Range: 46,200,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 210 Crew: 50FACs will also be easier to detect, without having to use huge sensors. In fact, a secondary active sensor designed to detect FACs might be a regular feature on larger warships. Here is a size 3 FAC-detection sensor using the same tech level as above. Remember it won't be able to detect anything outside the 750 ton to 1000 ton range.Code: [Select]
FAC Detector
Active Sensor Strength: 63 Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 3 HS Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 15 to 20 Maximum Range: 51,975,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 63 Crew: 15Obviously these changes will make fighters and FACs a lot easier to detect and target. Their speed will provide a defence but I am also going to look at a chaff/flares equivalent to add some survivability. This should provide a more interesting challenge than their current invulnerability.Steve
Post by: welchbloke on July 21, 2010, 01:55:23 PM
What I trying to say is that I would have preferred a sensor that improves detection ranges for small targets, but instead of only detecting a small range of target sizes, the sensor can only search a given volume of space every few minutes. This would probably be a few degrees of coverage, so the downside would be a requiirement for multiple sensors bringing with it a degree of management to set up search sectors.
Post by: dooots on July 21, 2010, 09:51:45 PM
Post by: lastverb on July 22, 2010, 06:29:23 AM
It would be possible but I don't want to make narrowband sensors too flexible.
Steve
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 22, 2010, 08:46:22 AM
Quote
For the purposes of consistency, I may make resolution zero mode a narrowband sensor that operates from 0.01 to 1.Shouldn't missiles of size 50+ by bigger than one hull size?
I like the change, however I don't think I'm actually going to use it, I prefer a size 50 R20 active on a sensor ship and thats all the coverage I need.
Post by: symon on July 22, 2010, 09:19:20 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 22, 2010, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: "symon"
I'm veering towards agreeing with Welchbloke here. It seem a little too close to a 'fighters are special' approach, that so far Aurora has avoided. Not as bad as Starfire2 and assault movement, but I'm a little uncomfortable.It's not really a fighters are special approach as you can use narrowband sensors at any resolution. If the precursor DDs are all 6000 tons, you can set up a narrowband sensor that works for 6000 tons as well. Besides, the current resolution zero sensor is already using the narrowband approach. A missile that is only 0.05 HS can still be detected at max range by a resolution 1.00 sensor, when that resolution 1.00 sensor should really only detect it at 0.0025 of max range if it followed the normal missile rules. The other alternative to narrowband sensors is to redo the whole sensor resolution vs target size system so that missiles, fighters and FAC can be detected at reasonable ranges by normal sensors. That would actually be better if I could figure out a way to handle it without removing the whole concept of sensors that are specialised for different target size. I am open to suggestions
Steve
Post by: Caplin on July 22, 2010, 12:12:50 PM
Speaking as someone who likes the current sensor mechanics, I would be in favor of narrowband sensors sacrificing detection granularity for range, as currently seems to be the case.
It doesn't imply to me that fighters are special so much as that there is yet another option for designing ships, should you choose to use it.
I would rather not see the whole sensor resolution system gutted entirely.
Best and thanks,
Zack.
Post by: Brian Neumann on July 22, 2010, 01:11:00 PM
With the new model it will be posible to target them at longer ranges, and make the range at which they fire from a juggling act once again. Do they press in to fire a shorter range missile, or do they play it safe and fire a long range missile to stay out of the defensive fire envelope?
Brian
Post by: IanD on July 22, 2010, 02:18:06 PM
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
I prefer a size 50 R20 active on a sensor ship and thats all the coverage I need.That is my usual approach as well.
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
is the ability of fighters and, to a lesser extent, FACs to launch missiles from outside enemy sensor range with almost no chance of detection.Having said that it is sometimes the only chance a low tech player has of surviving.
One problem with yet more search sensors is that it eats into the weapons load of early tech warships, you would probably still need a dedicated sensor ship anyway. Would an alternative be to increase the range at which small craft can be detected as the EM component increases? My warships already tend to carry four search sensors to cover Missiles, fighters, FACs and warships of approximately 5000 tonnes plus. You would now have the spectre of a high tech warship being invulnerable to low tech opponents.
Regards
Post by: Caplin on July 22, 2010, 03:20:11 PM
From my point of view at least, the suggestion of increasing small craft detection range specifically doesn't make much sense. I love Aurora primarily because its rules display a remarkable consistency and internal logic, even if that logic is dependent
on "magical" elements. I wouldn't want to see that logic strained overmuch. A narrowband sensor I can believe, but an increase in the detection range for one particular type of ship with the increase in technology of an unrelated component I find a bit
harder to swallow.
I wouldn't think high tech ships would be made invulnerable by this addition, but my perspective is biased, never having engaged in "real" combat before.
Just my two cents.
Best,
Zack.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 22, 2010, 03:31:00 PM
With a techadvantage of just two levels, your ships are basically impervious to small missile fire thanks to superior AM defenses and shielding.
I like the proposed change, no need to make it more complicated.
Post by: Brian Neumann on July 22, 2010, 05:10:02 PM
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
Why would a high tech ship even bother.Not quite true. If you have enough missiles coming in they can still do a lot of damage. Even the best active defense can be overwhelmed by numbers, and fighters are the easiest way to get those numbers quickly. In addition while your shields and armour is going to be significantly better at that sort of a tech advantage, planet based defenses are still going to be a problem. Just in the number of missiles that can easily be based on the planet.
With a techadvantage of just two levels, your ships are basically impervious to small missile fire thanks to superior AM defenses and shielding.
I like the proposed change, no need to make it more complicated.
Brian
Post by: dooots on July 22, 2010, 09:40:43 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The other alternative to narrowband sensors is to redo the whole sensor resolution vs target size system so that missiles, fighters and FAC can be detected at reasonable ranges by normal sensors. That would actually be better if I could figure out a way to handle it without removing the whole concept of sensors that are specialised for different target size. I am open to suggestions
Steve
The only option I can think of is to add an early warning sensor that like narrowband sensors would have longer range but instead of an upper limit on target size they would not be able to be used for getting a missile lock. The player can now make an early warning sensor to see fighters/facs before they can fire. You can then double the range of the broadband sensor you posted earlier. It's now fairly easy to counter fighter's armed with small short range missiles but fighters using standard anti-ship missiles would require a fairly large sensor. This large sensor could be used for both anti-fighter and anti-ship roles but you can do that now if your missiles only have a range of about 40-50 mkm.
But honestly I'm fine with the narrowband sensors even if they do feel a bit specialized for fighters.
Post by: Andrew on July 23, 2010, 04:37:12 AM
Although I have no real problem with the original idea.
Post by: symon on July 23, 2010, 05:31:02 AM
Post by: saw on July 23, 2010, 06:48:01 AM
Just some thoughts from a long time lurker.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on July 23, 2010, 08:53:08 AM
Quote from: "dooots"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"The other alternative to narrowband sensors is to redo the whole sensor resolution vs target size system so that missiles, fighters and FAC can be detected at reasonable ranges by normal sensors. That would actually be better if I could figure out a way to handle it without removing the whole concept of sensors that are specialised for different target size. I am open to suggestions
Steve
The only option I can think of is to add an early warning sensor that like narrowband sensors would have longer range but instead of an upper limit on target size they would not be able to be used for getting a missile lock. The player can now make an early warning sensor to see fighters/facs before they can fire. You can then double the range of the broadband sensor you posted earlier. It's now fairly easy to counter fighter's armed with small short range missiles but fighters using standard anti-ship missiles would require a fairly large sensor. This large sensor could be used for both anti-fighter and anti-ship roles but you can do that now if your missiles only have a range of about 40-50 mkm.
But honestly I'm fine with the narrowband sensors even if they do feel a bit specialized for fighters.
I agree (I think) with Ian in that I'm concerned that the original proposal would push the pendulum too far in the opposite direction: I fear that GB and fighters would be completely marginalized. Two of the surprises I've had from GB and fighters are: 1) that speed isn't nearly as big a defense as I thought it would be and 2) that size was the important "agility effect" that allowed them to close to weapons range. I strongly suspect that if they can be targetted at long range by shipborne systems, that they will not be useful as a weapons system because they won't be able to close to engagement range.
I think Doots' suggestion is a very good compromise. From gameplay point of view, I think it will push players more in the direction of "combined arms" fleets, by which I mean fleets which have their own "space superiority/escort" versions of GB and fighters. The idea is that the early warning sensor would pick up an incoming strike, then the main combatants would turn away from the strike (to increase closing time) while sending out escorts to engage the strike. It feels like this adds more trade-offs into the nature of a players fleet, rather than pushing things more into the direction of missile cruisers.
OTOH, I just realized that I'm not sure what the difference between "search" and "early warning" sensors are. I think it comes to the following proposal: "Introduce the narrow-band functionality for search sensors only; not for fire control"
John
Post by: Kurt on July 23, 2010, 12:01:55 PM
That is under the current rules scheme. With narrow-band sensors the fighter-countermeasures process will become somewhat easier and less expensive, but as I noted, it isn't impossible under the current rules.
If you are worried about upsetting the current balance, that is a valid concern, but Steve did point out in his original post that he intends to add some defensive stuff for fighters to increase their survivability.
Kurt
Post by: Andrew on July 23, 2010, 02:05:17 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 23, 2010, 02:50:37 PM
I mean, possibly, effective TCS 21 might be better than 20 now.
And Fighters will probably only be useful with lower than 1.
Even though, I've never encountered a fighter myself.
Do NPRs actually use them?
Post by: Maximillian on July 23, 2010, 09:31:04 PM
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
So, then people will have to build Cloak fields with lower efficiency to not get into the range of the narrowband sensors?
I mean, possibly, effective TCS 21 might be better than 20 now.
This is the part that bothers me. Having a discontinuity like that feels artificial. Maybe a drop off as with current sensors detecting targets below their resolution?
Still not sure I like the idea of a narrow band sensor not being able to see the honking huge dreadnought right next to the ship, though.
of course, I haven't had fighters attacking me, that might change my opinion.
Max
Post by: Brian Neumann on July 24, 2010, 05:21:12 AM
The techno babble could be that the narrowband sensor is tuned to detect the mass signature for a specific mass and that the farther the mass is from what it is tuned for the harder it is to detect.
Brian
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 24, 2010, 12:01:05 PM
It wouldn't make sense.
Or we need a rework of cloaking fields.
Post by: dooots on July 24, 2010, 09:20:35 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
OTOH, I just realized that I'm not sure what the difference between "search" and "early warning" sensors are. I think it comes to the following proposal: "Introduce the narrow-band functionality for search sensors only; not for fire control"
John
The early warning sensors would be like a passive version of actives. For the most part it works like an active search sensor but like passive sensors their contacts can not be used with fire controls to fire a weapon. So you still need active search sensors for actually attacking.
I also like this idea a bit more then narrow band sensors as it is useful for large and small ships. If you currently run say a size 5 res 100 active sensor to act as your early warning sensor you could replace it with a size 1 res 100 early warning sensor and then use a size 2-3 res 100 active sensor for firing your missiles. So if you are not worried about fighters it is still useful to you unlike the narrow band sensors that are mostly only going to be used for finding fighters and facs.
I think it also adds another reason to go into the stealth tech line. If you are running stealth ships that look like fighters on the early warning sensors the enemy could launch their fighter interceptors just to find out that the fighters are actually 20,000 ton cruisers. You destroy the fighter interceptors and now the enemy is possibly defenseless vs your fighters. Although it would probably hurt early stealth based scout ships.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 28, 2010, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: "Andrew"
A possible idea if we consider that the active grav sensors actually detect the ships drive field rather than the ship itself, then perhaps fighter engines cause a ship to be more easily detectible so for detection purposes it is treated as a larger size catagory, the same but to a lesser degree for gunboats. As both of these engines create a stronger drife field, you could continue it and have commercial engined ships with a lighlty smaller size rating for detection purposes than military engined ships. It would make fighters easier to detect by changing the nature of fighter engines rather than trying to explain the longer range of some sensors.Thermal sensors are already engine detectors so I would prefer not to replicate that function. Also, Aurora doesn't have the same drive field mechanic that was present in Starfire.
Although I have no real problem with the original idea.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 28, 2010, 09:03:47 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
I've been thinking about this since Steve made the original post. Really all this does is make what should happen anyway a little easier. After all, what should happen the first time a group of ships gets ambushed by missiles launched from small units they can't see? If it happened to any halfway competent navy the first thing they would do is rush a dedicated unit with a sensor capable of seeing the fighters beyond their own launch range into production. That is possible under the current rules, but it is expensive and likely the sensor would take up a lot of space. But it would happen, or you will just lose more ships. The deployment of the sensor, along with a weapons system capable of engaging the fighters, would inevitably lead to the fighter-using side deploying fighters capable of engaging at a longer range, stimulating an ongoing weapons-deployment/countermeasures race. Just like real life.Longer-range detection of fighters also brings into play the idea of interceptors, combat space patrols and E2 Sentry style early warning vs incoming fighters. At the moment fighters are almost all attack craft.
That is under the current rules scheme. With narrow-band sensors the fighter-countermeasures process will become somewhat easier and less expensive, but as I noted, it isn't impossible under the current rules.
If you are worried about upsetting the current balance, that is a valid concern, but Steve did point out in his original post that he intends to add some defensive stuff for fighters to increase their survivability.
As I mentioned in the original post, I will be adding some additional defences for fighters against missile attack, either in the style of chaff or flares or some agility beyond that of larger ships. The trick is going to be coming up with mechanics that remain internally consistent yet don't make ships invulnerable.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 28, 2010, 09:06:17 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
How about having the chance to detect something that is not in the narrowband drop off like it does currently for a resolution that is larger than the target. Just make it apply on both sides of the band. something that is x4 as large will be detected 1/16 as far away as something that is within the band it is designed to detect. This will keep the mechanism pretty much the same as it is currently.That's a very good idea. However, as the narrowband sensors have 5x range, I would probably make the drop-off start at the regular level for a sensor of that size rather than the 5x range.
The techno babble could be that the narrowband sensor is tuned to detect the mass signature for a specific mass and that the farther the mass is from what it is tuned for the harder it is to detect.
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on July 28, 2010, 09:12:31 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
That's a very good idea. However, as the narrowband sensors have 5x range, I would probably make the drop-off start at the regular level for a sensor of that size rather than the 5x range.Works for me. This would mean however that a target that is outside the band by 1 hull space will be detected at 1/5th of the range. If you are going to do that then maybe make the narrowband sensor have a range based on the size. Something like 1% of the target size, with a minimum of 5 hull spaces. This would mean that a narrowband sensor tuned for really massive ships would have a little more room to play with (A size 1000 ship would have a range of 995-1005 hull spaces. It would help keep an enemy from realizing that by adding 2-3 hull spaces they can make the sensor not work nearly as well. ( a couple of shields will not be a big deal and except for the problem of the jump ship capacity not a big refit at all.)
Steve
Brian
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 28, 2010, 10:33:38 AM
I mean, sure you could still refit your ships cheaply to not be detected that early, but first you need to know at what distances to
And as said, I think we now need a rework of cloaking fields.
Maybe make them reduce the ships detection range as if they would be smaller, but keep the effective range?
A ship with 200 HS and a 98% cloaking field is effectively 4 HS, can be detected at optimal range by an R4 sensor, and only from very close by an R200 Sensor, but a Narrowband R4 sensor should probably not pick it up at four times the range.
However, an R200 Narrowband sensor would hardly pick it up, so thats no solution.
No idea, honestly.
Post by: IanD on July 30, 2010, 03:14:48 AM
It did seem wrong in my current campaign that 40 fighters could destroy ships several tech levels higher, but without the fighters the Intruder ships would have been much more difficult to destroy and could have glassed the planet from outside the range of the PDCs.
Regards
Post by: symon on July 30, 2010, 06:32:13 AM
It doesn't? I assumed it did to explain how non-destructive nuclear warheads are when compared to railgun rounds et al.
"Still doesn’t make sense to me that you can see a very small target far away but not a large target, so unless you are going to change the mechanism from radar/lidar or even gravity sensors as I misunderstand them, it is not a simple extrapolation of current technologies and smacks of the magic detector."
I still share this concern.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 02, 2010, 11:39:03 AM
One option I am contemplating is changing the sensor mechanic so that smaller targets in general are not penalised as much as they are now. This could take the form of reducing the penalty vs small targets or perhaps changing the current Range = Resolution x Power formula from a linear scale to a graduated one. In other words, small resolutions would see further than they do now and you would need a larger increase in resolution to increase the range. I'll give it some thought and post an update.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 02, 2010, 04:02:00 PM
1) Active Sensor Strengths are increased by x10. So level 1 tech would be strength 100, level 2 would be strength 120, etc.
2) The formula for active sensor range changes to use the square root of the resolution rather than the resolution itself. So it would be: Range = SQRT(Resolution) x Strength x EM Sensitivity/10 x 10,000 km
3) Resolution Zero Sensors are removed, as they are also a 'magic' fix. Instead, a resolution lower than 1 would be allowed and missiles would be detected based on their actual size.
The formula for detecting objects smaller than the sensor resolution would remain the same.
The following excel screenshot demonstrates how this would affect detection ranges, using the existing system for the upper chart and the suggested new system for the lower chart. The chart show ranges in millions of kilometers and assumes a size 1 sensor. So a size 3 sensor would have 3x this range, a size 10 sensor 10x this range, etc.. Note that for resolution 100, ranges are the same as the current system. As the resolution gets smaller, the range increases in comparison to the current system while as the resolution increases above 100, the detection range becomes less than the current system. Assuming a sensor with an ideal resolution, objects of size 1 (size 20 missile) would be detected at 10x the current range, objects of size 4 (200 ton fighter) would be detected at 5x the current range, objects of size 20 (1000 ton FAC), would be detected at approximately 2.5x the current range and objects of size 200 (10,000 cruiser) would be detected at 70% of the current range. All of the above maintains internal consistency and allows greater detection range for smaller objects. No 'magic' required.
The fix for cloaking would be to improve its effectivess in line with the general improvement in sensor effectiveness against small targets.
[attachment=0:3ifv1lpj]resolution.GIF[/attachment:3ifv1lpj]
Missiles are a little more interesting. Using the above system and assuming a sensor of resolution 0.15, a size 3 missile (or larger) would be detected at 3.9x of the current range of a resolution zero sensor. A sensor of resolution 0.3 would detect size 6 missiles (or larger) at 5.5x the current range. This substantially increases the range at which missiles can be detected and killed. An alternative is to limit the minimum sensor resolution, which can be reasonably explained by technobabble and maintains internal consistency. For example, if the minimum resolution was set at 0.5 then missile detection ranges would be as follows:
Size 2 missile: 28% current
Size 3 missile: 64% current
Size 4 missile: 1.1x current
Size 5 missile: 1.8x current
Size 6 missile: 2.5x current
This seems reasonable, although it gives a reason to use large numbers of small missiles to avoid detection and overwhelm point defence. On the other hand, it makes multi-warhead missiles (carrying several small missiles) less effective as you can detect the primary missile at a greater range. Larger missiles can also carry ECM and onboard sensors, which may be important when I finally get around to the EW updates.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
EDIT: In retrospect, I would leave the sensor strengths the same and remove the /10 from the EM Sensitivity. This simplifies the formula and means I wouldn't have to modify the detection range of EM sensors vs active sensor emissions. The formula would therefore be: Range = SQRT(Resolution) x Strength x EM Sensitivity x 10,000 km
Steve
Post by: Kurt on August 02, 2010, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I guess I am still not completely happy with Narrowband sensors. The point about cloaked ships is a good one and I do appreciate the concerns about the 'magic' aspect, although modern sensors are often dedicated to a particular wavelength because that is ideal for detecting certain types of object. On the other hand, I do want some way of detecting FAC and particularly fighters at a greater distance without truly enormous sensors as I feel that would be more realistic than the current system. I am open to alternative suggestions.
One option I am contemplating is changing the sensor mechanic so that smaller targets in general are not penalised as much as they are now. This could take the form of reducing the penalty vs small targets or perhaps changing the current Range = Resolution x Power formula from a linear scale to a graduated one. In other words, small resolutions would see further than they do now and you would need a larger increase in resolution to increase the range. I'll give it some thought and post an update.
Steve
Steve - First, I am responding to this before reading your next post with your suggestion for replacing the narrowband sensors, but I wanted to make this point regardless of the suggestion.
I don't have a problem with the way things are. After all, you can still design and build systems to counter fighters, it just requires a dedicated escort to do so, with sensors dedicated to detecting and engaging fighters. Yes, they will be somewhat large, but that is consistent with the game system. It is consistent with the way things work today, too. There are anti-air capable platforms, and dedicated anti-air platforms that are much better than the standard ship at engaging air units. I am working designing systems and a ship in the Terran Campaign that will fill just this role. The Empire doesn't need it right now, as it doesn't have any enemies (known) that use fighters, but it believes in being prepared and having designs "on the shelf" that they can dust off if needed. I'll post the design maybe tonight.
Of course, having said that, the Terran Campaign is using larger ship designs than I usually use (up to 66,000 ton monitors), so my anfi-fighter design will likely be a 15,000 ton CLE, and Terran acttive sensor tech is relatively advanced, but you can do this at any tech, it just gets harder at lower tech levels.
To restate my position, you can deal with fighters perfectly well under the current mechanics, you just have to design and deploy purpose built ships to do so, or deploy purpose built fighters as interceptors. Yes the sensors are large but it is possible and just means that you have to work a little harder.
Kurt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 02, 2010, 04:32:25 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve - First, I am responding to this before reading your next post with your suggestion for replacing the narrowband sensors, but I wanted to make this point regardless of the suggestion.I agree it is possible, although I have created some ships in the past with fighter detectors and the sensors are usually 30-50 HS, which is pretty large. While I also agree it gets easier to create a sensor of the same range at higher tech, the combat range of the enemy fighters also gets higher so you end up still having to create huge sensors to cope with the increased threat range. I would like a situation where you can design an anti-fighter or anti-FAC ship that doesn't require far larger sensors than an anti-ship design. It just needs larger or more specialised ones but still within reason. Perhaps in the same 10-15 HS range that might be used for a good quality missile escort. I would also like to have fighter detection sensors with a reasonable range on smaller ships - even on 500 tons or less fighters - so that a true interceptor battle can take place away from the carriers. At the moment, I just cannot see losing any fighters unless I deliberately take them close to enemy ships. This will also diversify the number of fighter types. Instead of just attack craft, you will need interceptors, escorts and E-2 equivalents. Perhaps even cannon-armed interceptors. To compensate for the increased chance of detection I am considering adding some additional defensive capability. Perhaps a small target bonus for defence, simulating that a 250 ton fighter can dodge a missile more easily than a 6000 ton destroyer.
I don't have a problem with the way things are. After all, you can still design and build systems to counter fighters, it just requires a dedicated escort to do so, with sensors dedicated to detecting and engaging fighters. Yes, they will be somewhat large, but that is consistent with the game system. It is consistent with the way things work today, too. There are anti-air capable platforms, and dedicated anti-air platforms that are much better than the standard ship at engaging air units. I am working designing systems and a ship in the Terran Campaign that will fill just this role. The Empire doesn't need it right now, as it doesn't have any enemies (known) that use fighters, but it believes in being prepared and having designs "on the shelf" that they can dust off if needed. I'll post the design maybe tonight.
Of course, having said that, the Terran Campaign is using larger ship designs than I usually use (up to 66,000 ton monitors), so my anfi-fighter design will likely be a 15,000 ton CLE, and Terran acttive sensor tech is relatively advanced, but you can do this at any tech, it just gets harder at lower tech levels.
To restate my position, you can deal with fighters perfectly well under the current mechanics, you just have to design and deploy purpose built ships to do so, or deploy purpose built fighters as interceptors. Yes the sensors are large but it is possible and just means that you have to work a little harder.
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on August 02, 2010, 04:57:26 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
SNIPIf you do give them a bonus I would suggest it be linear with a small bonus at about 1500 tons (30hs) and going on down. This gives FAC's a small bonus, and most fighters a bigger bonus.
At the moment, I just cannot see losing any fighters unless I deliberately take them close to enemy ships. This will also diversify the number of fighter types. Instead of just attack craft, you will need interceptors, escorts and E-2 equivalents. Perhaps even cannon-armed interceptors. To compensate for the increased chance of detection I am considering adding some additional defensive capability. Perhaps a small target bonus for defence, simulating that a 250 ton fighter can dodge a missile more easily than a 6000 ton destroyer.
Steve
Brian
Post by: UnLimiTeD on August 02, 2010, 05:00:10 PM
It will make detecting fighters a little cheap, but then again, they are still not dead at that point.
For Cloak, it's also easy to change. Just, do us a favor, and increase the mass efficiency instead of TCS% reduction.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 02, 2010, 06:53:12 PM
Anything larger would be easier to detect. A size 8 missile would be detected at 1.6x the current range and Size 12 missile at 3.6x. ANnthing of size 20 or above would be detected at full range for a resolution 1 sensor, which would be 10x current.
Here is an example of how this would be displayed in the Create Research Project window. This is for a size 6, resolution 1 active sensor. The tech is Grav Sensor 21 and EM 11.
Code: [Select]
Missile Detection Sensor
Active Sensor Strength: 126 Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 6 HS Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 1 Maximum Range: 13,860,000 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 1,509,354 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 2,217,600 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 4,989,600 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 126 Crew: 30
Materials Required: 31.5x Duranium 94.5x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 1260RPHow does that sound?Steve
Post by: sloanjh on August 02, 2010, 07:55:27 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
2) The formula for active sensor range changes to use the square root of the resolution rather than the resolution itself. So it would be: Range = SQRT(Resolution) x Strength x EM Sensitivity/10 x 10,000 km
LOL - This is exactly the change I thought of proposing a few days back. I was going through the "Dangerous Waters" manual, (Modern Naval Warfare simulator from a few years back, with detailed sonar models) and was reminded that narrowband vs. broadband typically refers to passive systems, and it struck me that the original proposal seemed a bit excessive on the techno-babble front. In my opinion, the problem you were trying to fix is that it requires 10x detector size to detect a target that's 10x smaller; going from linear to sqrt drops this to a roughly 3x ratio.
Needless to say, I prefer this proposal over the original one, although like Kurt I would also be happy with no change.
John
PS - it just occurred to me that this thread is a good example of why Aurora is still a fairly "clean" game system, even after all these years. Your drive to unify the mechanics of all the different objects in the game (e.g. ships, GB, fighters, missiles) based on a set of first principles has, IMNSHO, a lot of the special-case rules that make coding up (or learning the rules of) a game like SF so difficult. It's interesting how closely this mimics good coding practice - the way to keep a large commercial product maintainable is to strive for performing fixes that bring the code closer to a set of provably correct first principles, rather than to apply local "bandaids" that fix problems in an ad hoc manner.
Post by: Beersatron on August 02, 2010, 10:11:12 PM
However, that may be clouded by the fact that I have never performed combat against a fighter.
/my short 2 cents
Post by: Father Tim on August 03, 2010, 04:04:28 PM
The only counter-argument I can offer to those who say 'oh, you can build dedicated anti-air units, all it takes is huge sensors and special resolutions' is I don't want to. That is not the sort fleet I want play - I'm not interested in building a simulation of a modern wet navy with it's large task forces and specialized ship designs. I play 'Age of Sail' frigates & line-of-battle ships and vast fleets of merchant ships scurry all about demanding protection and offering targets for raiding. Or I play steel & steam ironclads, the battleship race, and Dreadnought supremacy. There is no room in mental model for specialized, dedicated anti-air craft, and the longer I can pretend 'fighters' are dirigibles and 'FAC' are schnellboote (or Torpedo Boats) the better.
In short, I have chosen not to use mass drivers, orbital shipyards, missiles (much - early battleships all mounted torpedo tubes and I prefer to model them with short-range, inaccurate missles rather than energy weapons), or 'fighters' - though most of my larger craft mount a 'spotting float plane' or two. I am happy to ignore anything in Aurora that can't be fit into my conception - I only ask that I not be forced to use something that does not.
Post by: dooots on August 03, 2010, 06:08:47 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on August 03, 2010, 06:47:00 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on August 04, 2010, 09:27:30 AM
I'm of the opinion that small craft detection, as it currently stands in v5.14, isn't broken. I use fighters fairly extensively in my games. My fleet configurations usually have several smaller scouts assigned to function as detection screen from greater stand-off ranges. They are primarily equiped with both thermal and EM passives for ranged detection of small signatures and carry a scout fighter or two that can be tasked to go out with an active system for ID'ing contacts. I can usually detect FAC's at ranges will outside thier ability to engage my fleet units without intercept.
What I think does need some changing is the ablitity adjust sensor suite resolution. As in, build a suite of X size and then the resolution is resetable by the individual ship. This would address the mass penalty for multiple installations of different resolutions that would otherwise be the same mass for different detection classes. (ie missile defense, small craft detection, ship detection).
Something similiar for missile mounted active systems. The ability to set a resolution prior to launch would go a long way to making them much more functional.
Something else I'd like to see is greater task group escort ranges, 10m km is too close for my sensor screens. At least 50m and 100m range bands would be useful.
Just my first 2cr. I'll read in detail soon.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 04, 2010, 12:04:04 PM
Quote from: "dooots"
Do NPR's currently use anti-fighter sensors? After thinking about it I can't remember ever seeing a NPR with more then two active sensors, one for anti-ship and one for point defense. I ask because I want the change to sensors so I don't feel like I'm cheating just because I use fighters/facs, but if NPR's don't even use the sensors then it does nothing for me.There is an NPR design with a sensor intended to detect fighters but I don't know if I added it before I released v5.14
Steve
Post by: Yonder on August 11, 2010, 02:08:06 PM
What if you gave corvette and fighter engines a big boost to their thermal signatures? That way the passive sensors on the fleet would have a much easier time picking up fighters before they came in close. This way you'd know they were there, you'd know where they were, and could then react accordingly in your fleet positioning. However you wouldn't be able to actually target and kill them from those farther ranges without the more expensive purpose built craft.
Post by: sloanjh on October 03, 2010, 06:48:16 PM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley2) The formula for active sensor range changes to use the square root of the resolution rather than the resolution itself. So it would be: Range = SQRT(Resolution) x Strength x EM Sensitivity/10 x 10,000 kmLOL - This is exactly the change I thought of proposing a few days back. I was going through the "Dangerous Waters" manual, (Modern Naval Warfare simulator from a few years back, with detailed sonar models) and was reminded that narrowband vs. broadband typically refers to passive systems, and it struck me that the original proposal seemed a bit excessive on the techno-babble front. In my opinion, the problem you were trying to fix is that it requires 10x detector size to detect a target that's 10x smaller; going from linear to sqrt drops this to a roughly 3x ratio.
I take it back - I think this isn't where the sqrt should go (I didn't read/think about it carefully enough). I think instead, the formula should be
Code: [Select]
Range = Resolution*Strength*(EM/10)*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^(3/2)), where Size is the target size. This compares to the current (new) formula of Code: [Select]
Range = sqrt(Resolution)*Strength*EM*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^2)). The original formula was:Code: [Select]
Range = Resolution*Strength*(EM/10)*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^2)).The difference in Resolution scaling between these is that the Range in current formula grows more slowly with resolution, but keeps the size/resolution penalty the same (which results in a 3/2 exponent in the penalty) while the proposal flattens out the penalty for increasing resolution, resulting in a (1/2) exponent in the penalty - the original behavior was linear, i.e. an exponent of 1. In other words, the new formula has made it more difficult (quadratic growth rather than linear) to make long-range sensors for detecting large ships, and offsets/hides this by adding a factor of 10x to the range. Arguably it makes things worse: consider a sensor with a resolution of 10 which detects size 10 targets at 10Mkm. With the original formula, if I made the resolution 40 (4x), then the max range would go up by 4x, but the size-10 penalty would be (10/40)^2 = 1/16, for an overall drop in size-10 range of 1/4 to 2.5Mkm. This is a linear penalty (1/Resolution) for a fixed-size sensor detecting a small target as the resolution increases. With the new formula, resolution 40 would only have 2x the max range, but the size-10 penalty would remain at 1/16 - in this case the size-10 range would be 1/8 or 1.25Mkm. This is a penalty of (1/Resolution)^(3/2), which is worse than the original formula. With the proposed formula, the max range would be 4x as large (as with the original), but the size-10 penalty would be (10/40)^(3/2) = 1/8; the max range would be unchanged (from the original formula), while the drop in size-10 range would be 1/2 to 5Mkm. This is a penalty of sqrt(1/Resolution), which is a flatter curve, which what I thought was intended.Sporry I didn't realize this sooner....
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 04, 2010, 09:50:52 PM
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on October 04, 2010, 10:12:30 PM
My intention for the change was to increase the overall range of low resolution sensors and decrease the max range of very high resolution sensors (with resolution 100 remaining the same) while retaining the drop off for detecting objects smaller than your resolution. I wasn't trying to decrease the penalty for detecting small objects for higher resolution sensors, which I think is what your proposal would do if I understand the figures (which isn't necessarily a given :)). I was trying to allow the creation of sensors that could detect smaller objects at a greater range than the same size (and tech) sensor in the previous version while still requiring ship designers to think carefully about their sensor resolution. I think I have achieved that objective, or at least it feels like it within my own campaign.Yep - you understood the figures correctly :-) I hadn't realized that was your goal - what you describe is (almost) what the current formula does, as far as I can tell. The "almost" is because the penalty, at fixed sensor size, for detecting small objects as the resolution increases has actually gotten worse - it used to be a linear penalty; now it's a sqrt worse (i.e. 3/2 exponent rather than 1 exponent).
Steve
If you wanted to go back to the original penalty (max range vs. resolution, for fixed target and sensor size, goes like 1/Resolution), then I think the thing to do is to keep the sqrt(Resolution) in the max range, but change the drop-off to a 3/2 power as well. This formula would be:
Code: [Select]
Range = sqrt(Resolution)*Strength*EM*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^(3/2)).
This flattens the drop-off curve, but in such a way as to compensate for the overall reduced range for large targets. With this formula, doubling the resolution cuts the range for small targets by a factor of 2, and increases the range for large targets by a factor of sqrt(2) - the current formula cuts the range for small targets by 2*sqrt(2) and increases the range for large targets by sqrt(2) (the same). The original formula cut the small-target range by 2 and increased the large target range by 2 as well.I would prefer the latest formula proposal, but at the end of the day it's your game (and work) so your decision :-)
Best,
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 04, 2010, 10:20:31 PM
Yep - you understood the figures correctly :-) I hadn't realized that was your goal - what you describe is (almost) what the current formula does, as far as I can tell. The "almost" is because the penalty, at fixed sensor size, for detecting small objects as the resolution increases has actually gotten worse - it used to be a linear penalty; now it's a sqrt worse (i.e. 3/2 exponent rather than 1 exponent).
If you wanted to go back to the original penalty (max range vs. resolution, for fixed target and sensor size, goes like 1/Resolution), then I think the thing to do is to keep the sqrt(Resolution) in the max range, but change the drop-off to a 3/2 power as well. This formula would be:Code: [Select]Range = sqrt(Resolution)*Strength*EM*10Kkm*min(1, (Size/Resolution)^(3/2)).This flattens the drop-off curve, but in such a way as to compensate for the overall reduced range for large targets. With this formula, doubling the resolution cuts the range for small targets by a factor of 2, and increases the range for large targets by a factor of sqrt(2) - the current formula cuts the range for small targets by 2*sqrt(2) and increases the range for large targets by sqrt(2) (the same). The original formula cut the small-target range by 2 and increased the large target range by 2 as well.
I would prefer the latest formula proposal, but at the end of the day it's your game (and work) so your decision :-)
I think this is something I going to have to study when I am less tired and then get back to you :). I have been playing with Visual Basic 2010 today and it has been both enlightening and frustrating. There is definitely no way to upgrade Aurora without effectively rewriting it. They are barely the same language. Its also surprising that several useful features in VB6 are not even in VB2010. On the other hand, if I start a new project I will write it in VB2010 because it is far more OO-friendly and obviously will be supported for a lot longer. I have also been looking at SQL Server 2008 but I think it is over-complicated for what I need.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on October 04, 2010, 10:30:59 PM
I think this is something I going to have to study when I am less tired and then get back to you :). I have been playing with Visual Basic 2010 today and it has been both enlightening and frustrating. There is definitely no way to upgrade Aurora without effectively rewriting it. They are barely the same language. Its also surprising that several useful features in VB6 are not even in VB2010. On the other hand, if I start a new project I will write it in VB2010 because it is far more OO-friendly and obviously will be supported for a lot longer. I have also been looking at SQL Server 2008 but I think it is over-complicated for what I need.
Steve
That's fine with me - rest is good :-) Like I said, sorry I didn't realize all this before you coded it up - I'm mainly trying to plant the seed right now....
On VB2010, Joel On Software (a collection of blogs from a very insightful guy) characterizes the various .NET languages as being different syntactic sugar (my name) on top of the same underlying language. This is accurate - what they've done is added language extensions to the various languages to essentially let you write C# (which is a truly excellent language) in those languages. If you go to a .NET language, you might be better off simply biting the bullet and learning C# - after all, didn't SA start out as your toy to learn VB? :-)
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 04, 2010, 10:43:37 PM
That's fine with me - rest is good :-) Like I said, sorry I didn't realize all this before you coded it up - I'm mainly trying to plant the seed right now....
On VB2010, Joel On Software (a collection of blogs from a very insightful guy) characterizes the various .NET languages as being different syntactic sugar (my name) on top of the same underlying language. This is accurate - what they've done is added language extensions to the various languages to essentially let you write C# (which is a truly excellent language) in those languages. If you go to a .NET language, you might be better off simply biting the bullet and learning C# - after all, didn't SA start out as your toy to learn VB? :-)
Yes, you are probably right. Many years ago I was a commercial C++ programmer (in Windows 3.1 !!) so C# is probably going back to my roots. I'll download the Express version and take a look.
Steve
Post by: Beersatron on October 04, 2010, 11:45:29 PM
In saying that, you'd need a licence to package SQL Server methinks?
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 05, 2010, 04:12:07 AM
As for the resolutions, what is it with R100?
I mean, I hardly EVER see a ship of that size, every reasonable precursor is at least 120, and I find resolutions below 150 for sensors to be a waste of range.
All the recent change did for me is that my sensor Ships now need an additional 10 HS of sensor, because the long range sensor is way less long ranged, and missiles now require me to have a 10 HS R1 sensor to detect at reasonable ranges, where before a 4 HS R0 would do.
Which obviously means I can't pack Anti-Missile Sensors on my Anti-Missile Escorts anymore.
Still, I weirdly like the change, makes it more expensive to detect anything. Recon becomes more challenging.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on October 05, 2010, 07:18:58 AM
Yes, you are probably right. Many years ago I was a commercial C++ programmer (in Windows 3.1 !!) so C# is probably going back to my roots. I'll download the Express version and take a look.
Steve
Keep this in mind. C# is not a derivitive of C or C++. It's Microsoft's version (ripoff from some points of view) of Sun's JAVA.
Post by: Erik L on October 07, 2010, 06:57:14 PM
I use SQL 2000, 2005 and recently 2008 for work, 2005 is definitely better than 2000 but I haven't had a chance to do anything new in 2008 yet.
In saying that, you'd need a licence to package SQL Server methinks?
Actually in VS2005+ there is a desktop version of SQL Server called SQL Express. This can be distributed with apps.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 11, 2010, 09:45:33 PM
So, does that mean that Aurora will eventually be rewritten? Or will it just die in favor of something new?The most likely outcome is that it will continue to be developed in VB6 and I will eventually create a different type of game in C#.
Quote
As for the resolutions, what is it with R100?Anti-missile sensors are actually slightly better with the changes, especially against missiles larger than size 6. Longer range sensors above resolution 100 are slightly worse but that is working as intended.
I mean, I hardly EVER see a ship of that size, every reasonable precursor is at least 120, and I find resolutions below 150 for sensors to be a waste of range.
All the recent change did for me is that my sensor Ships now need an additional 10 HS of sensor, because the long range sensor is way less long ranged, and missiles now require me to have a 10 HS R1 sensor to detect at reasonable ranges, where before a 4 HS R0 would do.
Which obviously means I can't pack Anti-Missile Sensors on my Anti-Missile Escorts anymore.
Steve
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 12, 2010, 05:50:47 AM
Suffice to say, this makes it impossible for me to Anti-Missile Sensors on my Anti-Missile Escorts, so I need a dedicated sensor ship for it.
Btw, I've never ever had an NPR, precursors, or anythign else really fire missiles or >size 6 at me.
I now need a size 50 Fleet Scout Sensor for good sensor coverage instead of the size 30, so "slightly worse" is a drastic understatement, while I still need a fightersensor of nearly the same size to have any chance to detect them at a good distance; Dectection kinda just became harder across the board. R100 is just a retarded resolution, who builds ships of 5000 tons? I've yet to see any.
But as said, I like the changes. More challenging to get good recon now. On the other hand, Cloaking is likely less efficient, but I've yet to test that.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 12, 2010, 06:00:56 AM
I currently have a game (my AAR) with all research 5k, with active sensor tech 2 levels higher, and I need a size 6 Sensor to find enemy missiles at roughly 300k, while my Anti-Missiles have a million range.
Suffice to say, this makes it impossible for me to Anti-Missile Sensors on my Anti-Missile Escorts, so I need a dedicated sensor ship for it.
Btw, I've never ever had an NPR, precursors, or anythign else really fire missiles or >size 6 at me.
I now need a size 50 Fleet Scout Sensor for good sensor coverage instead of the size 30, so "slightly worse" is a drastic understatement, while I still need a fightersensor of nearly the same size to have any chance to detect them at a good distance; Dectection kinda just became harder across the board. R100 is just a retarded resolution, who builds ships of 5000 tons? I've yet to see any.
But as said, I like the changes. More challenging to get good recon now. On the other hand, Cloaking is likely less efficient, but I've yet to test that.
Using Active Sensor Strength 21 and EM Sensitivity 8, this is a size six, resolution 1 sensor. It has a base range of 10 million kilometers. Against a size 6 or less missile target, the detection range is still greater than a million kilometers. I am not sure why your sensors have such short range. Could you post an example of the 6HS sensor with the 300k range?
Test Sensor
Active Sensor Strength: 126 Sensitivity Modifier: 80%
Sensor Size: 6 HS Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 1 Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 10,080,000 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 1,097,712 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 1,612,800 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 3,628,800 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 126 Crew: 30
Materials Required: 31.5x Duranium 94.5x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 1260RP
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 12, 2010, 06:49:26 AM
Btw, the original suggestion of a narrowband active only seeing a small range of HS, couldn't you use that for missiles?
Which would be easily explained with the missile seeing more, but not reacting to it.
Post by: ExChairman on November 30, 2010, 08:42:56 AM
Without knowing it I have been building 2 types of sensors, 1 large, 5000 tons and up as well as one for 50 tons and up, but I cant see whats have changed after I researched the tech Narrowband?? :P :-[
Post by: sloanjh on November 30, 2010, 02:15:08 PM
What does the Narrow Band tech do??
Nothing. It's an aborted idea that Steve had to expand the range at which fighters could be detected. He ended managing the issue a different way, but forgot to pull out the preliminary work he'd done putting in a Narrow Band tech line....
John