Aurora 4x
New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: MehMuffin on February 18, 2012, 02:39:10 PM
-
I'm a pretty new player, and close to designing my first fleet and I was wondering if it works to give each ship a CIWS, instead of making dedicated point defense ships?
-
Basically, that's only workable if your combat squadrons consist of one or two ships. Any larger groups benefit considerably from being able to bring all point defence to bear against any threatened ship. As a matter of doctrine, it can still work to protect more valuable ships in a group (such as jumpships) with a CIWS to maximize the point defense fire that particular ship can put out.
-
Could you use a CIWS armed "cloud" of fighters/FACs around your fleet to protect them without longer range ships? If you had them close enough to eachother to stop enemy missiles from going in-between them, couldn't they form a highly effective but cheap barrier that would be hard to detect at longer ranges?
-
No, CIWS doesn't work that way. CIWS, unlike full-fledged weapons systems, will only target missiles that are going for the ship they are on. This means that a PD ship with CIWS and nothing else is basically useless - they'll knock down missiles that are coming for them, but they won't do a thing to protect other ships in the fleet.
-
What about a "tank" type ship, huge, with heavy armor and shields, like a swarm queen and armed only with PD weapons? Would the AI target it because it was the biggest ship in a fleet, even though it couldn't attack them except at short range, or would it have to be attacking them for them to target it?
-
It might be the first ship the AI targets, but it wont be the only one, Ai shifts targets after a few salvos, even before the target it destroyed (and i think even before they hit at all).
-
What if you gave it a hangar, with fighters that cycled in and out reloading to avoid enemy missile fire, instead of other cruiser/destroyer sized ships?
-
That would work.
Blue Emu used Q-ships in his Ad Astra campaign very successfully - civilian ships with no weapons but ton of armour, that were the biggest and closest ships to the enemy, which wasted hundreds of missiles in sandblasting their armours. Eventually the enemy switched targets.
What you are suggesting would work nicely, though people usually use fighters to avoid the issue of PD altogether, because you can send your fighters so far ahead of your TG that the enemy has no way to engage you. In which case its better to devote that hull space for fighters, fuel and magazines instead of armour and PD.
-
Has anyone tried using a fleet entirely made up of medium sized, fast PD ships that would destroy enemy missile fire while closing to beam range?
-
I'm sure people have tried. The problem with beam weapons in particular is they have an extremely short range so you have to be nearly point blank to have it work. Particle beams and railguns seem to be a bit longer ranged and might work slightly better.
Even then there is still two issues to deal with: one is that as you close the range to the enemy ships before they exhaust their magazines the flight time of the missiles gets shorter and shorter which gives you less and less time to have whatever PD method you choose be able to shoot down the enemy missiles. By the time you get into range the flight time might be less than 5 seconds and you might not even have an opportunity to fire PD at all.
the next issue is the beam weapons themselves, optimal solution is to have PD and offensive weapons be on independent fire control and reactors. this would make for some large and expensive ships unless you sacrifice and use some shared systems, but the problem there is you would need to turn off PD while at point blank range to enemies in order to enable your offensive weapons.
-
What if you waited for them to exhaust their supplies of ASMs before closing in, so the ships only had to deal with remaining AMMs before targeting the enemy ships? I was thinking more of ships that would destroy all of the enemy missiles before closing and shredding their ships with PD, instead of closing while being fired on.
-
Has anyone tried using a fleet entirely made up of medium sized, fast PD ships that would destroy enemy missile fire while closing to beam range?
Yes. It is very difficult to do as your point defense needs to be good enough to handle the entire missile salvo. For most opponents you will not be able to use the area fire mode on the beam weapons as the missiles move to fast for you to reload and get three shots off. This is about the minimum number of shots from area mode that equals the final defensive fire mode. Mostly due to when in the sequence they fire. area mode fires on your normal turn at whatever the range, while final defensive fire is whenever the missile hits the specified range (usually 10,000km). You will probably need to absorb your enemies entire magazines before you get a chance to shoot back. This is because of the range of the missiles. Most ships do not have enough magazines capacity to keep shooting for two + hours (missile range 60m+ km and closing speed of 10k km (assuming both sides are trying to close)). If you can survive the missile barrages then it only takes a couple of energy armed ships to destroy a pure missile fleet.
If you really want to do this my recomendation would be to use 15cm lasers or mesons and get your rate of fire up to every 5 seconds (capaciter 6) Push your beam fire control speed as high as you can as well as the turret tracking speed. You need to be able to shoot down lots of fast missiles. I would aim for getting 1/2 of your shots to hit against a 50k km/second missile speed. The 15cm weapons are a good compromise between range/damage output vs number of weapons mounted. Make sure your ships have good shields/armor as well as they will get hit and you want the damage to not penetrate usually.
Good Luck
Brian
-
I'm sure people have tried. The problem with beam weapons in particular is they have an extremely short range so you have to be nearly point blank to have it work. Particle beams and railguns seem to be a bit longer ranged and might work slightly better.
The range of beam weapons is certainly their weak point.
But neither are particle beams, or railguns longer ranged than lasers, not would it matter if they were.
A standard combat missile might have range of 50m km, while the wiki’s 20cm laser proposal has a range of 400k km, and the gaussgun has a range of 30k km. A beam armed ship has to cross 49,600,000 km under fire anway, so the extra 370,000 km wont really matter. Either you are able to sustain the enemy fire completely (thus the range to cross becomes nearly irrelevant), or not (in which case you cant make it anyway).
The only real reason for longer-ranged beam weapons is the range of the enemy’s beam weapons. If the other guy uses 10cm railguns with a range of 40k km, then you want to outrange him, as beam weapons are significantly harder to stop.
Even then there is still two issues to deal with: one is that as you close the range to the enemy ships before they exhaust their magazines the flight time of the missiles gets shorter and shorter which gives you less and less time to have whatever PD method you choose be able to shoot down the enemy missiles. By the time you get into range the flight time might be less than 5 seconds and you might not even have an opportunity to fire PD at all.
Realistically most beam warships use beam PD weapons, which are only really usable in “final fire” mode. The flight time of enemy missiles is not really important for final fire, and final fire will always get a shot, even if the flight time of the enemy is lower than 5s, no?
The only thing is the “tracking bonus”, which in most circumstances is not that important…
the next issue is the beam weapons themselves, optimal solution is to have PD and offensive weapons be on independent fire control and reactors. this would make for some large and expensive ships unless you sacrifice and use some shared systems, but the problem there is you would need to turn off PD while at point blank range to enemies in order to enable your offensive weapons.
Actually that issue is much smaller for beam warships, compared to missile ships. For a missile ship you will usually have main tubes of size 3-6 and PD tubes of size 1, and corresponding firecontrolls with huge differences in resolution and range. The PD systems must be able to engage full broadsides of the enemy, while the ASMs must be able to overcome the enemies PD. So there are two requirements that must be fulfilled, making for expensive ships. (Ok, technically it might be possible to build and all-large-calibre missile ship, which simply relies on superior range or speed to destroy enemy ships before they can launch their missiles).
For beam warships the same thing does not apply that much. Given that beam ships can withstand enemy missile fire reliably anyway (else they would not have made it into range in the first place), it does not matter how long they take to kill an enemy ship, it only matters that they don’t get into range of their beams. So a single large laser would be sufficient to –slowly – pick apart an enemy. The laser can not be intercepted, so there is no minimum number of lasers that is needed to overcome enemy PDs as with missiles. So in the end the double-requirement tends to play much more in favour of beam warships. And that is not even counting that offensive lasers are also able to serve in a PD role.
A caveat: the damage per second dealt by offensive lasers can matter if the enemy packs long range beams himself, and if he carries significant shields. If the shields reload faster than you main laser deals damage, then that is a bit arkward…
-
Just a quick note on missile that hit within the first 5 seconds of flight. Due to the timing of missile being fired during the fire phase and detection (1st thing in the fire phase) a missile is invisible for the first 5 seconds of flight. This translates to your beam point defense will NEVER fire on a missile during those 1st 5 seconds.
Brian
-
Thank you for the counterpoints. All very good information.
So it is indeed possible to get too close to a missile ship if you should somehow close before they are exhausted or if you popped out of a JP right on top of one. I've been dealing with a race that likes to uses 58k m/s missiles and my introductory beam ships could do very little with them as the range on the beams was vastly less then the distance the missiles would travel in a 5 second span.
I understand the point about having the diverging systems on the ships. A beam only ship would be less fragmented technology and armament wise then an equivalent function beam defense/missile offense standalone cruise would be anyway. At least you would not need to be researching in completely different fields. If your scientist staffing leaned toward energy all the better.
My comment about raillguns and particle beams being marginally better then lasers was just that, marginally. Seems as though it really is a moot point. A couple hundred thousand k's matters little as long as you are faster and your opponent is out of missiles. This makes me think of a wonderful NPR surprise Steve could write into their AI: reserves. As it is now they tend to exhaust their batteries to the last missile even if the last salvos are reduced in size. Makes for easy pickings PD wise and signals when all is clear to close in. Would be a fun shock to close in only to find out the NPR had held back a last salvo or two to use as a point blank last ditch defense if you closed to beam range.
-
Due to the timing of missile being fired during the fire phase and detection (1st thing in the fire phase) a missile is invisible for the first 5 seconds of flight. This translates to your beam point defense will NEVER fire on a missile during those 1st 5 seconds.
Realistically most beam warships use beam PD weapons, which are only really usable in “final fire” mode. The flight time of enemy missiles is not really important for final fire, and final fire will always get a shot, even if the flight time of the enemy is lower than 5s, no?
I was under the impression that Final Defensive Fire was always allowed to fire upon incoming warheads, provided that the ship in question still had unallocated energy weapon fire from weapons mounts dedicated to Final Defensive Fire.
Also, if an energy weapon based fleet is attempting to close a large distance through the range envelope of an opposing force, wouldn't the fleet be better off with at least some of its weapons dedicated to Area Defense, in stead of Final Defense? As I understand things, Area defensive fire allows ships to engage previously detected missiles during the standard shooting phase, and will engage any detected missiles in range. Final Defensive Fire, on the other hand, works on the same basic rules as the Close In Weapons System.
If an energy focused fleet does not have enough individual weapons mounts to safely divert some of them to Area Defense, then the fleet has already lost, as none of the ships may support other fleet elements, which makes the particular energy fleet a waste of research and resources. If the fleet does have enough energy mounts, then the fleet is approaching the appropriate size for dealing with the given threat.
And, like all fleets, the larger your Resolution 1 sensor is, the happier you are. With sufficient detection range, energy weapons may attempt to swat down missiles in Area Defense mode, instead of depending upon Final Defensive Fire. With sufficient detection range, and sufficient research, your fleet can also have nice bonuses towards tracking and targeting missiles.
-
I was under the impression that Final Defensive Fire was always allowed to fire upon incoming warheads, provided that the ship in question still had unallocated energy weapon fire from weapons mounts dedicated to Final Defensive Fire.
Also, if an energy weapon based fleet is attempting to close a large distance through the range envelope of an opposing force, wouldn't the fleet be better off with at least some of its weapons dedicated to Area Defense, in stead of Final Defense? As I understand things, Area defensive fire allows ships to engage previously detected missiles during the standard shooting phase, and will engage any detected missiles in range. Final Defensive Fire, on the other hand, works on the same basic rules as the Close In Weapons System.
If an energy focused fleet does not have enough individual weapons mounts to safely divert some of them to Area Defense, then the fleet has already lost, as none of the ships may support other fleet elements, which makes the particular energy fleet a waste of research and resources. If the fleet does have enough energy mounts, then the fleet is approaching the appropriate size for dealing with the given threat.
And, like all fleets, the larger your Resolution 1 sensor is, the happier you are. With sufficient detection range, energy weapons may attempt to swat down missiles in Area Defense mode, instead of depending upon Final Defensive Fire. With sufficient detection range, and sufficient research, your fleet can also have nice bonuses towards tracking and targeting missiles.
Apparently even "final fire" does not help against missiles launched and it in the same 5s increment, but I am also awaiting confirmation from other forum member. This would actually be a point in favor of longer ranged beams, simply for staying out of that range.
Final fire works similar to CIWS, but - critically - does engage missiles headed for other ships. In other words: point defence does allow the ship to support other fleet elements.
“Area defence” for beam weapons on the other hand is questionable if you keep your fleet stuck together. You need incredibly large firecontrolls and lasers to even match the kill potential of final fire weapons on a per unit basis- let alone on a per weight measure. This is because 1) missiles move fast and cover quite some ground in 5s, and 2) shooting at targets further away implies lower hitchances- or larger systems.
In other words: If you can not shoot multiple times anyway, then you might as well wait to the last moment when you have the best hitchance.
-
This translates to your beam point defense will NEVER fire on a missile during those 1st 5 seconds.
I believe CIWS still works. One of its advantages in jump assaults.
-
Brian is correct. It's a function of the sequence of play. Sensor detection is at the end of the main movement phase. Weapons fire, including missile launch, is at the end of the turn. At the beginning of the next turn is movement and final defensive fire against any missiles that will hit thier targets...before sensors are resolved. This creates a single 5 second impulse where missiles could be launched and hit without any chance of intercept. This is well know to veteran players. It is very difficult to actually use though. CIWS does not function any better than any other system, it's at the mercy of the same exploit of the sequence of play.
-
I feel slightly proud of myself as an extremely novice player that I did pick up on the 5 second missile travel & turn sequence loophole.
-
What if you were to have one massive ship armed with large amounts of rapid fire CIWS, carrying a large group of fighters armed with mesons to act as additional PD and attack? If you overdid the shields and armor and CIWS, it would be awfully hard to damage the mothership, do the AIs limit their missile attacks against specific targets to avoid wasting ordnance?
-
CIWS does not function any better than any other system, it's at the mercy of the same exploit of the sequence of play.
CIWS has its own built in sensors and operates autonomously. IE - still works when you are in Sensor Delay. I ahven't tested it explicitly since I don't typically use CIWS, but I'm pretty sure it works that way from having shot missiles at assaulting NPCs.
-
anyone that does test us let us know how it pans out
-
CIWS has its own built in sensors and operates autonomously. IE - still works when you are in Sensor Delay. I ahven't tested it explicitly since I don't typically use CIWS, but I'm pretty sure it works that way from having shot missiles at assaulting NPCs.
It does not matter if the sensor is built in to a system or is an independent suite. Sensor detection follows movement and is before weapons fire. Point defense final fire can only engage missiles that have been detected. I used this exploit extensively with fighters before the active sensors were rewritten to change how resolution functioned.
CIWS is the result of a 'discussion' from a few years ago about reducing the hullspace size of Gauss Cannon. I'm the one that started that discussion. It is nothing for than reduced GC in a turret with an intigrated res1 active sensor and beam firecontrol. It still follows all the rules/code for beam turrets/beam fire control set to final fire(self defense).
-
Heres a CIWS question for ya:
I want to put some CIWS on orbital habs (it only makes sense).
If alien missiles target the population, despite the fact that they live in the hab, will the CIWS go off?
-
It does not matter if the sensor is built in to a system or is an independent suite. Sensor detection follows movement and is before weapons fire. Point defense final fire can only engage missiles that have been detected. I used this exploit extensively with fighters before the active sensors were rewritten to change how resolution functioned.
CIWS do not have conventional sensors, they never do regular sensor detection. they just allocate HS to sensors and automatically fire at errything.
-
CIWS do not have conventional sensors, they never do regular sensor detection. they just allocate HS to sensors and automatically fire at errything.
Absolutely wrong. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1691.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1691.0.html)
-
Absolutely wrong. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1691.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1691.0.html)
I believe what TheDeadlyShoe was pointing at, it that the game does not consider CIWS to have sensors for any other aspect than calculating the weight of the thing.
The sensor is an entirely implicit assumption that is just used to calculated the costs of the system, but not used in battle (i.e you could not detect a sensor boy with CIWS, if you where right on top of it) - see point 4 in the first post of the thread you linked to. Specifically you can never actually spot anything with this implicit sensor, it just serves to justify that a CIWS system will always fire, regardless of the presence of an actual sensor. So if it is actually programmed as CIWS will always fire at incoming missiles, that could include missiles during the first 5 s.
-
I believe what TheDeadlyShoe was pointing at, it that the game does not consider CIWS to have sensors for any other aspect than calculating the weight of the thing.
The sensor is an entirely implicit assumption that is just used to calculated the costs of the system, but not used in battle (i.e you could not detect a sensor boy with CIWS, if you where right on top of it) - see point 4 in the first post of the thread you linked to. Specifically you can never actually spot anything with this implicit sensor, it just serves to justify that a CIWS system will always fire, regardless of the presence of an actual sensor. So if it is actually programmed as CIWS will always fire at incoming missiles, that could include missiles during the first 5 s.
Not exactly. The hs is calculated for a minimum size sensor that would be required to detect missiles in time the the CIWS to engage. To my knowledge Steve has not posted what criteria he has used for this. This most definitely explicit not implicit. Even though this sensor is not available for any other use and does not have a detectable EM signature it still goes through the required detection steps to see inbound missiles. This includes the 5 second exploit.
Back when Steve added this system I was extensively using the 5 second exploit with my fighters and many of the ships engages had CIWS suites and never engage those missiles. With the major change to active sensors that removed resolution 0 and a the degradation of detection of ships larger that the sensor resolution the ability to make use of the exploit with fighters has functionally been eliminated.
I highly doubt that he would have given CIWS a functional all seeing eye against missiles since that type of detection has been a major factor to not have in the game. This actually goes back to our Starfire days.
-
is there any way CIWS can be split into an active and passive system and be susupectible to some form of jamming and boosting technology perhaps expand its elements in gameplay ?
-
I believe CIWS is essentially already susceptible to jamming, jamming being missiles equipped with ECM devices. CIWS incorporates ECCM, which means the system can counter jamming. Especially the raspberry.
For an active scanning capability, I do not believe CIWS systems are detectable via passive sensors, which I attribute it to the ultrashort range of the ciws system. I don't think CIWS warrants constant EM signature.
-
a modifiable EM signature perhaps just throwing some random thinking around on this