Aurora 4x
New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: wobbly on August 29, 2013, 12:28:36 PM
-
Hi, I have few questions I haven't been able to find answers to searching the forum:
1. a. Do Geo/Grav vessels burn fuel while scanning?
b. If I select picket before scanning are my survey ships harder to detect/saving fuel?
2. Is there any other way to change a vessel's speed other then the picket command?
3. I've been playing around with adding scanners on missiles & have no idea what's an effective amount. I assume for thermals it depends on the target's engines, so against ion engine how much is good for a. a missile, b. fighters/facs, c. a destroyers?
Thanks,
Michael
-
Speed changes are accomplished via the task group screen (F12). Upper left block, just to the right of the task group select droplists.
-
1.a. Nope
b. Only to passive thermal sensors, as the engines are basicly shut down and so do not emit any heat
2. See Erik´s reply
3. There simply is no correct answer. Aurora allows soooo much variety, you can´t predict anything. Your enemy may fly around in a huge battleship wich would have a thermal sig of 3000, but has engines with thermal reduction 25%, so only has an effective sig of 750. A destroyer (typical thermal sig of 400 to 600 (assuming some 5000 to 7000 tons and 3000 to 4000 km/s speed) would then only have a sig of 100 to 150, or he just shuts his engines down, you loose any lock instantly.
Thermals vs. missiles? Forget it!
Thermals vs. fighters/FAC? Very hard, thermal sig is _very_ small (I am tempted to say: vs. fighters forget it too), so you need big sensors, making the missile _very_ ineficient.
Thermals vs. warships? Can work, but see above.
Personally, if I use sensors on missile at all (rather rare) I go for actives, as they do not depend on the enemy to comply with my wishes.
In those cases, I go with the rule of thumb to have at least as much sensor range as my missiles fly in a single 5 second tic, i.e. a 30000km/s missile will mount a 150000km ranged sensor.
This rule of thumb can be applied for passive sensors too, of course. If you´re enemy uses ships with a thermal sig of 800, you designe the sensors of your missiles accordingly.
Note: The term "destroyer" realy tells nothing in Aurora, as you can class a 800 ton gunboat or a 100000 ton behemoth a destroyer.
-
Well usually for me a destroyer is between around 6000-11000 ton depending on what size shipyard the RNG generates at the start. I probably wouldn't of bothered with sensors myself except when I tweak the numbers on the missile I hit a point where more agility doesn't seem to change the accuracy & more fuel makes the missiles several times longer then my sensors, so I thought I'd try sensor missiles & see how they worked.
Another question I just remembered, will 2 boat bays fit a 500 ton fighter? or do you need the hanger? I'll find this out for myself soon enough, but if someone answers before I research & build a fighter base it may save me some head-aches later on.
-
boat bays are the precursor to hanger bays. They work the same, just with less overall capacity/ton of ship used.
Brian
-
Em/th sensors makes sense on a buoy for system and jump point surveillance - this can be combined with a minefield.
-
Another question I just remembered, will 2 boat bays fit a 500 ton fighter? or do you need the hanger?
Boat bays and hangar bays contribute to an abstract "total bay size". The size of each individual bay does not act as a limit of the size of an individual ship.
I've got a couple (well, more like a couple of dozens actually) of PDCs with 8 hangar bays able to accomodate a single 8000t destroyer. Those PDCs are a very convenient way of reducing the maintenance counter of ships without them being stuck in overhaul.
On the sensor side, I *never* encountered any NPCs with thermal-reduced engines. The Iranshar Unity I'm currently planning to... erm... "pacify" have a lot of 1000, 2000 and 3000 thermal signature ships. I always put sensors - either thermal or active - on my missiles to allow for retargetting. Dedicating at least a token amount of space for sensor is mandatory in my books.
-
On missiles that have room, I put a bit of thermal sensors on there to go after nearby ships in case of over-salvoing. I used to use active sensors, but since I so commonly use fighters I stopped doing that, as I want my fighters to launch and retreat without being detected. An active ping from a missile is a giant "HEY LOOK AT ME SIGN".
-
On the sensor side, I *never* encountered any NPCs with thermal-reduced engines. The Iranshar Unity I'm currently planning to... erm... "pacify" have a lot of 1000, 2000 and 3000 thermal signature ships. I always put sensors - either thermal or active - on my missiles to allow for retargetting. Dedicating at least a token amount of space for sensor is mandatory in my books.
Ah, but that is because the AI is "stupid". I never base my design desicions on the stupidity of the AI but as if a real person would play them. That does not mean that I don´t tailor my designs _after_ making contact and _after_ getting some sensor readings on them.
The ideal way to play Aurora would be a true multiplayer game. Short of that, playing several races at the same time is the next best thing. Both ways have the huge drawback of a massive management workload, unfortunately.
Note: I am not complaining, the detail-richness is what makes Aurora Aurora and the workload is just a natural effect of that.
-
Thanks guys for the answers.
On missiles that have room, I put a bit of thermal sensors on there to go after nearby ships in case of over-salvoing. I used to use active sensors, but since I so commonly use fighters I stopped doing that, as I want my fighters to launch and retreat without being detected. An active ping from a missile is a giant "HEY LOOK AT ME SIGN".
How much is a bit? When I enter the numbers it gives me a detection range, trouble is I don't know how close together missiles travel in a salvo or how close together ships are in a TG.
I had another question, searching through older posts I saw it mentioned a few times that civilian transport behaves differently on 8 hr turns. Is this still current? Is it actually worth the bother? I'm currently using 1 day increments on auto-turns most of the time so it wouldn't be much slower.
Damn it I just thought of 2 more questions while I was typing.
a. Sometimes my auto-turns are interrupted with no interrupt message in my events log. Usually happens when I'm exploring a new system with hostiles. It looks from my end like it's interrupting for a contact even though my scanners aren't long enough range to pick it up. Anyone know what causes this?
b. Completely forgot what b was. Will come back to it when it annoys me in-game.
Edit: Remembered. The cost/time of retooling a shipyard, is it based on absolute refit cost, or a % change like build a different ship from the same shipyard is.
-
a. Sometimes my auto-turns are interrupted with no interrupt message in my events log. Usually happens when I'm exploring a new system with hostiles. It looks from my end like it's interrupting for a contact even though my scanners aren't long enough range to pick it up. Anyone know what causes this?
Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they can't see you.
-
In which case shouldn't the auto turns keep ticking away, rather then flagging to me - hey I can see you?
-
It depends on what is happening.
-
Aurora treats an entire salvo and an entire task group as a point-target, i.e. no space between individual missiles/ships.
a. While not interrupting _would_ leave you more in the dark, the AI has to react to the fact, that it spotted you. To react, Aurora has to stop.
Yes, in theory, it could do that while keeping running with continuous turns, but I don´t think it can do that in "real life" at the moment.
That is similar to Aurora stopping the continous turns when there is a battle between two AI races, you don´t even know about
-
Aurora treats an entire salvo and an entire task group as a point-target, i.e. no space between individual missiles/ships.
So for a missile sensor that would mean:
a. my ship destroyed: sensor needs to detect distance missiles are short of target?
b. target destroyed: distance irrelevant/will re-target other missile in salvo/ship in TG as effectively distance=0?
-
Thermals vs. missiles? Forget it!
Thermals vs. fighters/FAC? Very hard, thermal sig is _very_ small (I am tempted to say: vs. fighters forget it too), so you need big sensors, making the missile _very_ ineficient.
Thermals vs. warships? Can work, but see above.
Personally, if I use sensors on missile at all (rather rare) I go for actives, as they do not depend on the enemy to comply with my wishes.
Isn't an active sensor dependent on the enemy's size = cross section?
Since smaller targets like missiles and FAC tend to have such big mass % as engines and much higher engine power, they should be visible much further away on thermals compared to actives of same size and tech level.
-
Isn't an active sensor dependent on the enemy's size = cross section?
Since smaller targets like missiles and FAC tend to have such big mass % as engines and much higher engine power, they should be visible much further away on thermals compared to actives of same size and tech level.
The reason this does not work out in game is that active sensors have two techs that boost the range of detection. EM sensors are a multiplier on the Active sensor strength. This results in a much bigger boost to the active sensors detection range. If you are only dealing with npr's then you might get away with using thermals as they don't use any reduced thermal emissions tech on their engines. If you are fighting a human player then you will be out of luck.
Brian
-
Isn't an active sensor dependent on the enemy's size = cross section?
Correct. This means, vs. enemy missiles, fighters and FACs it is very unlilely/difficult to make to work (but that goes for passives too)
Since smaller targets like missiles and FAC tend to have such big mass % as engines and much higher engine power, they should be visible much further away on thermals compared to actives of same size and tech level.
The percentage of engine on a missile/fighter is irrelevant. If a missile engine has (as has the size 2.5, magneto plasma missile engine in my current game) a power of 8, it has a thermal sig of 8. The thermal sensor on your AMM would have to spot that (very small thermal sig) to re-target another salvo.
I guess what I am trying to say is: For AMMs or anti-fighter missiles, putting sensors on them is a waste of effort, no matter what approach you use.
-
If you are only dealing with npr's then you might get away with using thermals as they don't use any reduced thermal emissions tech on their engines. If you are fighting a human player then you will be out of luck.
Isn't it possible for human players to use stealth reducing cross section on vehicles as well? (and by a higher % then is possible with thermal reduction IIRC).
Might add that I haven't tried to design stealth fighters, so I am not sure how small the devices can be made, but since stealth IRL is primary for smaller craft and fighters it would be pretty silly if it wasn't possible to do.
-
I'm pretty sure I have had a pinnance taken out by missiles that detected its drive accidently and my missiles have detected wolver missile engines as they flew past each other so it isn't impossibe to do this.
How often this sort of thing happens and if it is worth doing it for an AAM missile is harder to say. But an AAM with a sensor will not self destruct but will continue to fly looking for a target...this means if fired on recipricol courses it may well pick up the next inbound salvo. At low tech levels I'd say it isn't worth it but at higher tech levels it probably isn't a completely daft idea.
For missiles designed to kill fighters I think it would make sense to have a thermal seeker in the missile as the fighters will probably be in a clump there is a high chance you find something within a few thousand km of the initial target.
-
Just remember, if the missile sensor has a radius of say 25km, the potential target needs to be in that radius at the boundaries of the time increment. If it crosses the entire radius during the increment, it won't be targetted.
-
Just remember, if the missile sensor has a radius of say 25km, the potential target needs to be in that radius at the boundaries of the time increment. If it crosses the entire radius during the increment, it won't be targetted.
This is true but the fact your missiles made contact and there is another missile group reload seconds behind that means that it is likely that the missiles will (if flying recipricol courses) actually end up right on top of each other or within engagement range if the sensor has a fairly reasonable range. The question is more if the course is recipricol enough for this to happen.
While it is a long shot and will be exceptionally hit and miss in practice the alternative is your AAM self destructing so in this case any chance of it happening is an infinite improvement over no chance at all.
But again this is something that makes no sense in the case of low tech level missiles but might be a worthwhile option at higher tech levels....especially since in this case you might have a detection radius against a missile drive in the thousands of km for a relatively modest investment in seaker hardware.
Added In Edit: Or I missunderstand the situation about what the missiles will do without a target as mine have always self destructed (the counter missiles). I am assuming they continue to fly the course they were on but if they do something else then the utility of the seaker head would likely be less. It would then be only of interest for the times when you use your counter missiles against fighters...and here I would think it would be worth while.
-
If a missile (AMM or ASM) targets a ship at location A, and by the time they are near, the ship is destroyed; then missiles without on-board sensors destruct. Missiles with on-board sensors will only react to anything in their radius. Since sensor checks are made (I don't recall which) either at the start of the increment, or the end; the new potential target needs to be in that radius to be considered. If it is just outside the radius, and moves completely through the radius during the increment, it is not eligble for targetting. If the missiles do not find anything, they will "circle" until they find an eligible target.
The reason a lot of people consider missile sensors impractical, is that the radius on them is so small most things can cross it without being "detected".
-
Ok, I did throw together a few missiles with thermal and active sensors.
My techs are:
Magneto Plasma Drive
Max. Engine Power Modifier x2
Warhead Strength per MSP 5
Active Grav Sensor Strength: 21
EM Sensor Sensitivity: 11
Thermal Sensor Sensitivity: 11
First an ASM-6. Both variants dedicate 0.6 MSP to sensors/reactor
Missile Size: 6 MSP (0.3 HS) Warhead: 5 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 31200 km/s Engine Endurance: 33 minutes Range: 62.3m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.3706 Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 100 Maximum Range vs 5000 ton object (or larger): 400,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 4.1829
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 312% 3k km/s 100% 5k km/s 62.4% 10k km/s 31.2%
Missile Size: 6 MSP (0.3 HS) Warhead: 5 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 31200 km/s Engine Endurance: 33 minutes Range: 62.3m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.2414 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 241,400 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.9763
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 312% 3k km/s 100% 5k km/s 62.4% 10k km/s 31.2%
A hostile ship of 5000+ tons would have to have a thermal sig of more than 1657, to be spottet at greater range from the thermal sensor ASM than the active sensor ASM.
Of course, the thermal gets better, the smaller the enemy ship gets, as the thermal sig (and thus the range it can be spotted) decreases linearly, while the range of the active is reduces by the square.
Now an anti-figher missile:
Missile Size: 3.999 MSP (0.19995 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 13
Speed: 40000 km/s Engine Endurance: 12 minutes Range: 29.2m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.2468 Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 5 Maximum Range vs 250 ton object (or larger): 60,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.6504
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 520% 3k km/s 169% 5k km/s 104% 10k km/s 52%
Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 13
Speed: 40000 km/s Engine Endurance: 12 minutes Range: 29.2m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.1612 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 161,200 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.5135
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 520% 3k km/s 169% 5k km/s 104% 10k km/s 52%
My current scout-fighter design moves at 13,800 km/s, but I could probably get a smaller figher-bomber to move at up to 15,000 km/s, so lets run with those numbers. At that speed, it moves 75,000 km per 5-sec tic, giving my active sensor missile a 80% chance, the fighter will be in range after a 5-second tic.
That fighter has a thermal sig of 96, which means, the thermal sensor AFM will pick it up at a range of 15,475 km, which translates to a 20.6% chance to be picked up after a 5-second tic.
Finally an AMM
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 38400 km/s Engine Endurance: 2 minutes Range: 4.4m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.105 Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 1 Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 10,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 0.9236
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 422.4% 3k km/s 132% 5k km/s 84.5% 10k km/s 42.2%
Missile Size: 0.999 MSP (0.04995 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 38400 km/s Engine Endurance: 2 minutes Range: 4.4m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.0682 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 68,200 km
Cost Per Missile: 0.8643
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 422.4% 3k km/s 132% 5k km/s 84.5% 10k km/s 42.2%
1) Putting the space the sensor takes into agility doubles the to-hit chance.
2) A size-6 ASM, moving at 32000 km/s I threw together has a thermal sig of 9.6 and will move 160,000 km per 5-second tic.
a) The active sensor AMM will pick up a size-6 or smaller missile at a range of 1089km, giving it a 0.68% chance to notice an enemy missile after a 5-second tic
b) The thermal sensor AMM will pick up that missile at a range of 654km, which gives it a chance of 0.41% to pick up a new ASM after a 5-second tic.
Conclusion:
No matter what I tried, the active sensor missile always performed better than the thermal sensor one. The only exception would be an ASM, that is used vs. a target, smaller than the sensor-resolution. Then the thermal is better.
Vs. missiles, sensors, at least at my tech level, are absolutely, totaly useless.
-
Erik the end of the turn x or the start of the turn x+1 are the same point in time so it doesn't matter when it happens. If in turn x there are targets in detection range due to the primary target being destroyed, the missile acquiring the target at the end of the turn or the start of the turn x+1 has the same result. The missile enages. For a missiles orbiting and waiting to pick up the next target it should again not matter as the target basically has to end the turn in the detection radius for the seeker head to kick in.
Ralf...you have just proven the adage "there are lies, damn lies and statistics." Clearly "bigger is better" in terms of detection radius but while I'd not touch what the chance of detection is with a 10' pole for missiles for ships or fighters it is solely a question of target spread vrs detection radius. So unless your fighter squadron has a seperation between fighters of greater than 16K km for the IR or 60K km for the active seeker then they will be engaged.
If you like active or passive is probably equally a matter of taste but also of what your enemies are like, I don't think there is a universal answer.
If at the end of the day it is sensible to do it for AAMs is a function of tech level, and frankly I would only think about doing it once my tech level is very high. For missiles intended for AF or AS work it makes sense since it is likely that there will be other ships/fighters close enough to be easily detected near a target that is destroyed.
-
Conclusion:
No matter what I tried, the active sensor missile always performed better than the thermal sensor one. The only exception would be an ASM, that is used vs. a target, smaller than the sensor-resolution. Then the thermal is better.
Vs. missiles, sensors, at least at my tech level, are absolutely, totaly useless.
Are you sure about being useless against missiles? If the enemy firing missiles is stationary ( for example a PDC or a hostile ship with knocked out engines ) this should mean that the next missile salvo always moves exactly in the same spots (assuming you are travelling directly towards or away from it).
In theory this would give your AMMs with minimal sensors a 100% chance to re-target, correct?
-
Before this get too far off track... the utlity of a sensor on an AAM is going to be very situationally dependent. The one case Alex mentions is the primary time it would have value and there are other cases it might come into play but the real reason to put a sensor in an AAM is for when the AAM is used in anti-fighter or anti-ship mode.
And for this is more likely then not a better idea to use active sensors.
But from my point of view what I am trying to point out is that it isn't completely daft (at higher tech levels) and that things I would ordinarily have not thought possible have happened so..."never say never" sort of thing.
-
Erik the end of the turn x or the start of the turn x+1 are the same point in time so it doesn't matter when it happens. If in turn x there are targets in detection range due to the primary target being destroyed, the missile acquiring the target at the end of the turn or the start of the turn x+1 has the same result. The missile enages. For a missiles orbiting and waiting to pick up the next target it should again not matter as the target basically has to end the turn in the detection radius for the seeker head to kick in.
It all depends on when movement takes place versus sensor checks. If we have the following order: Move, Sensor. Then if a ship is destroyed post-Sensor, they can very easily move out of range prior to the next check.
Per http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,532.0.html this is the Movement phase:
- Fleets Move
- Fighter Groups Move
- Fighter Groups Reload (remaining rearm time is reduced)
- Monsters Move (including precursors)
- Missile Salvos move (including intercept, point blank point defence and damage allocation\planetary bombardment)
- Life pod Endurance Check (any lifepods that have exhausted their endurance are removed)
- Sensor Update (all sensors are checked for new contacts)
So my read on this is Ship moves, Missile moves and hits, ship blows up, missiles look for new targets. So in theory, a missile with sensors will target a new ship. With one caveat.
The missiles will target whatever the fire control linked to their launchers is targeted upon. Once a target is destroyed, the missiles will hold position waiting for a new target to be selected.
Missiles with onboard sensors will use them to select a target if they are not currently under shipboard control
Steve
This is from a very old post (June 2008) and I couldn't find any newer posts that contradicted this.
-
From the list you give sensor update is made at the end of the turn. So the missiles acquire the new target at that point. It is up to Steve at this point to say how it works because I have to admit I would assume* this is how it has to be inorder for the onboard missile sensors to have any worth what so ever.
*Assume:==means "To make an ASS out of yoU and ME."
-
From the list you give sensor update is made at the end of the turn. So the missiles acquire the new target at that point.
I agree. However, read the caveat. If the ship that fired the missile still has an active fire control, any missiles left over will target the new target. Ship FC override missile sensors for targetting.
So missile sensors come into play in the following situations:
1. Firing ship destroyed/FC destroyed.
2. Firing ship can no longer see any targets and hence target anything.
3. Firing ship does not target anything, regardless of being able to or not.
So in the situation where you have 2 ships next to each other, and one is destroyed; any missiles that targetted that ship will NOT target anything until the firing ship does if it can.
That does leave a murky area that we would need a definitive answer from Steve on. Situation 3 should allow the on-board sensors to guide the missile. I can see it going either way.
-
Is there a way to get the game to dump a detailed log of combat? If so is it readable?
-
Is there a way to get the game to dump a detailed log of combat? If so is it readable?
You can export the event log. That is about as much detail as you'll get I believe.
-
Eric...this is really something for Steve.
My take on it is (if it is correct I haven't a clue):
Ship 1 is targeting fighter A. Missiles launched from the group including Ship 1 destroy fighter A, but some missiles Ship 1 fired remain. Fire Control on Ship 1 is now without a target. Missiles remaining at the end of the turn will use onboard sensors to switch to the nearby fighter B as they can see it.
Next turn Ship 1 targets fighter C and launches new missiles. Those missiles target fighter C, the other missiles target fighter B as they are self guiding at this point.
I would assume that once the seeker head on the missile activates to control the missile the fire control of the launching ship is no longer relevant. While it could go either way it does sort of defeat the purpose of putting sensors in the missile (baring the fact that without them they would self destruct) and it means that it doesn't matter what level of sensors you put in so long as the launching ship acquires a new target the missiles acquire it. But that is all...best guesses and may have no resemblance to the code.
-
Eric...this is really something for Steve.
My take on it is (if it is correct I haven't a clue):
Ship 1 is targeting fighter A. Missiles launched from the group including Ship 1 destroy fighter A, but some missiles Ship 1 fired remain. Fire Control on Ship 1 is now without a target. Missiles remaining at the end of the turn will use onboard sensors to switch to the nearby fighter B as they can see it.
Next turn Ship 1 targets fighter C and launches new missiles. Those missiles target fighter C, the other missiles target fighter B as they are self guiding at this point.
I would assume that once the seeker head on the missile activates to control the missile the fire control of the launching ship is no longer relevant. While it could go either way it does sort of defeat the purpose of putting sensors in the missile (baring the fact that without them they would self destruct) and it means that it doesn't matter what level of sensors you put in so long as the launching ship acquires a new target the missiles acquire it. But that is all...best guesses and may have no resemblance to the code.
Like I said, the post where Steve mentions ship board targetting trumping missile targetting is 5 years old, so from an earlier version. My read on what he said is as long as the ship has a viable fire control, it has control. Obviously, without looking at the code or Steve saying, all we have is guesswork.
-
Missile guidence was re-written in '09.
If a target is lost/destroyed missiles with onboard sensors will continue to the last know target location unless a new target is detected. All control by the launching MFC ends with the loss of the orginal target.
Relevent discussion(s) are circa June 2009.