Author Topic: Carrier Strike Group Critique  (Read 7233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2849
  • Thanked: 677 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2020, 04:37:06 PM »
People seem to dislike my sensor compliment. What do you all typically use for sensors in your fleets? I usually deploy a network of sensor buoys before any significant battle which tends to reduce the sensor requirements for my battle fleets. Hence the the abundance of short range res 1 sensors on my ships.

The res 500 sensor on my carrier is outdated but the res 500 on my scout fighter is relatively up to date. This sensor configuration has been adequate thus far at detecting the relatively large hostile ships I have been encountering from outside of hostile missile range.

The carrier is fairly fast and is capable of running away from anything it can't fight straight up... at least from what I have come across so far. I am hoping to get the next design iteration above 10k km/s max speed as speed is definitely useful for the tactics I tend to use with this carrier design.

I tend to only use low resolution sensors on my carrier and even most escorts such as destroyers. I rely on buoys and sensor scouts for locating enemies.

One interesting design is a 3-500t primary EM scout... I then add some box launchers of size 1 stuffed with different active or passive sensors... it really don't take much space. These ships usually have a deployment of around 1-3 months and a pretty decent range.

I also find that 125-175t with high resolution active sensors is very effective as they can have a decently large range and sensors tend to never be below res 5 and res 1 to detect them need to be VERY big and with even a small sensor tech advantage it can be impossible to find them with res 1 sensors.

This is why all my capital ships have some hangar space to hold scouts and different utility crafts for different mission types.

I only add a small high resolution sensor to any ship with offensive missiles but rarely that which cover the whole range for the longest range missiles they carry. One of the problem of the game is detection range of high resolution active sensors as you can't activate sensors individually. A patrol ship might want to activate their res 1 and 5 to try and find some small crafts in the vicinity without necessarily reveal themselves to some enemy capital ship far away which you most often can using res 5 or below.

In my opinion if I can gather all the Intel on the enemy before engaging I hold all the cards of when and how that will occur. I will not want to reveal my ships until the last moment or if possible not at all.


Here are some rules I live by for EM versus Active, given all have the same tech level...

A ship need an EM of about 50t to detect a resolution 100 sensor at the same distance from which the sensor will see you if you are 5000t or bigger.

A ship need an EM of about 100t to detect a resolution 20 sensor at the same distance it will see you if you are 1000t or bigger.

A ship need an EM of about 150t to detect a resolution 5 sensor at the same distance it will see you if you are 250t or bigger.

A ship need an EM of about 250t to detect a resolution 1 sensor at the same distance it will see you if you are 50t or bigger.


So... for example as resolution 5 is pretty normal as a small craft sensor a small EM scout will need about 150t to know if it has been spotted by active sensor... a 375t EM scout can usually have at least 150t EM sensor on it.

The important thing is to spot the sensor before any ship see you with their active sensor so you can evade... that is also why reduced thermal is key on all scout vessels... use it always!!

Buoys are also good but they can't really move and a permanently used up so still have a limited use... having a stealthy ship that can shadow an enemy for a long time can gather some Intel on them about their sensors if active.

Well.. long winded reply that perhaps make some sense...  ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2020, 05:01:04 PM »
People seem to dislike my sensor compliment. What do you all typically use for sensors in your fleets? I usually deploy a network of sensor buoys before any significant battle which tends to reduce the sensor requirements for my battle fleets. Hence the the abundance of short range res 1 sensors on my ships.

The res 500 sensor on my carrier is outdated but the res 500 on my scout fighter is relatively up to date. This sensor configuration has been adequate thus far at detecting the relatively large hostile ships I have been encountering from outside of hostile missile range.

The carrier is fairly fast and is capable of running away from anything it can't fight straight up... at least from what I have come across so far. I am hoping to get the next design iteration above 10k km/s max speed as speed is definitely useful for the tactics I tend to use with this carrier design.

I tend to only use low resolution sensors on my carrier and even most escorts such as destroyers. I rely on buoys and sensor scouts for locating enemies.

One interesting design is a 3-500t primary EM scout... I then add some box launchers of size 1 stuffed with different active or passive sensors... it really don't take much space. These ships usually have a deployment of around 1-3 months and a pretty decent range.

I also find that 125-175t with high resolution active sensors is very effective as they can have a decently large range and sensors tend to never be below res 5 and res 1 to detect them need to be VERY big and with even a small sensor tech advantage it can be impossible to find them with res 1 sensors.

This is why all my capital ships have some hangar space to hold scouts and different utility crafts for different mission types.

I only add a small high resolution sensor to any ship with offensive missiles but rarely that which cover the whole range for the longest range missiles they carry. One of the problem of the game is detection range of high resolution active sensors as you can't activate sensors individually. A patrol ship might want to activate their res 1 and 5 to try and find some small crafts in the vicinity without necessarily reveal themselves to some enemy capital ship far away which you most often can using res 5 or below.

In my opinion if I can gather all the Intel on the enemy before engaging I hold all the cards of when and how that will occur. I will not want to reveal my ships until the last moment or if possible not at all.


Here are some rules I live by for EM versus Active, given all have the same tech level...

A ship need an EM of about 50t to detect a resolution 100 sensor at the same distance from which the sensor will see you if you are 5000t or bigger.

A ship need an EM of about 100t to detect a resolution 20 sensor at the same distance it will see you if you are 1000t or bigger.

A ship need an EM of about 150t to detect a resolution 5 sensor at the same distance it will see you if you are 250t or bigger.

A ship need an EM of about 250t to detect a resolution 1 sensor at the same distance it will see you if you are 50t or bigger.


So... for example as resolution 5 is pretty normal as a small craft sensor a small EM scout will need about 150t to know if it has been spotted by active sensor... a 375t EM scout can usually have at least 150t EM sensor on it.

The important thing is to spot the sensor before any ship see you with their active sensor so you can evade... that is also why reduced thermal is key on all scout vessels... use it always!!

Buoys are also good but they can't really move and a permanently used up so still have a limited use... having a stealthy ship that can shadow an enemy for a long time can gather some Intel on them about their sensors if active.

Well.. long winded reply that perhaps make some sense...  ;)

That's a fairly interesting discussion. I have definitely neglected both EM and thermal sensors in most of my scout designs, mostly due to my ignorance of their detailed mechanics and my lack of practical experience engaging enemies with fleets larger than my own. In most of my games I tend to stumble on an unexpected enemy fleet with a survey ship and then dispatch a buoy scout to drop a bunch of active buoys nearby. Once I've stared at the enemy fleet for a while and get a good feel for their responses to my own ship movement, I send a carrier strike force in to eliminate them. So I haven't used EM or thermals too much since I am usually able to drop active buoys in a location which provides good sensor coverage during battle.

As my stealth tech improves I am considering designing a stealthy passive sensor scout which would probably benefit more from EM and thermal sensors than my existing designs.

Attached is a pretty typical example of one of my active buoy sensor nets. As the hostile planet orbits through the net, I get pretty good intel on enemy fleets.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 05:08:11 PM by liveware »
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2849
  • Thanked: 677 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2020, 05:21:53 PM »
Here is an excell to play around with Sensor tech and ranges... https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wq4hn1smxj9tsi/SensorCalculator.xlsx?dl=0

And here is bonus scout what is the size of a MSP 8 missile... very efficient to use these with high resolution actives... not for passive detection in any way. It is roughly at Ion tech level...

Code: [Select]
Raven class Stealth Scout      20 tons       1 Crew       9.6 BP       TCS 0    TH 1    EM 0
6200 km/s      Armour 1-0       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 3%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 10 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 15 days    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP2.38 (1)    Power 2.4    Fuel Use 2985.62%    Signature 0.5712    Explosion 19%
Fuel Capacity 4,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km (56 hours at full power)

Active Search Sensor AS16-R160 (1)     GPS 448     Range 17m km    Resolution 160
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2020, 05:28:16 PM »
Here is an excell to play around with Sensor tech and ranges... https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wq4hn1smxj9tsi/SensorCalculator.xlsx?dl=0

And here is bonus scout what is the size of a MSP 8 missile... very efficient to use these with high resolution actives... not for passive detection in any way. It is roughly at Ion tech level...

Code: [Select]
Raven class Stealth Scout      20 tons       1 Crew       9.6 BP       TCS 0    TH 1    EM 0
6200 km/s      Armour 1-0       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 3%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 10 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 15 days    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP2.38 (1)    Power 2.4    Fuel Use 2985.62%    Signature 0.5712    Explosion 19%
Fuel Capacity 4,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km (56 hours at full power)

Active Search Sensor AS16-R160 (1)     GPS 448     Range 17m km    Resolution 160

That is a very interesting scout design. I must investigate the tiny ship concept more deeply.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2849
  • Thanked: 677 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2020, 05:31:21 PM »
You can give them ridiculously long deployment times but I don't tend to do that for RP reasons. This ship could potentially get several years deployment and will not risk much in terms of failure either. So I stick with 5-30 days for ships this small.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2849
  • Thanked: 677 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2020, 05:39:57 PM »
Here is an excell to play around with Sensor tech and ranges... https://www.dropbox.com/s/3wq4hn1smxj9tsi/SensorCalculator.xlsx?dl=0

And here is bonus scout what is the size of a MSP 8 missile... very efficient to use these with high resolution actives... not for passive detection in any way. It is roughly at Ion tech level...

Code: [Select]
Raven class Stealth Scout      20 tons       1 Crew       9.6 BP       TCS 0    TH 1    EM 0
6200 km/s      Armour 1-0       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 3%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 10 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 15 days    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP2.38 (1)    Power 2.4    Fuel Use 2985.62%    Signature 0.5712    Explosion 19%
Fuel Capacity 4,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km (56 hours at full power)

Active Search Sensor AS16-R160 (1)     GPS 448     Range 17m km    Resolution 160

That is a very interesting scout design. I must investigate the tiny ship concept more deeply.

The above scout can't even be seen by the most powerful size 50 res 1 sensor, even if the opponent have several sensor techs advantage on you...

But as yo put lower resolution sensors on the less efficient they become, down to about resolution 50 you can go then a size 50 res 1 sensor can spot you at the same distance.

But obviously you are becoming dangerously close and will risk fast interceptors on your tail... ;)
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2020, 05:43:01 PM »
Have you ever succeeded at sticking a gun on something that small? I can't remember off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure gauss cannons can get down to something like 8 tons at the low end.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2849
  • Thanked: 677 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2020, 05:46:50 PM »
This is the smallest from my test game where I did some Star Wars themed ship variants and look a like Aurora designs...

Code: [Select]
TIE/ln class Space Superiority Fighter      84 tons       4 Crew       30.2 BP       TCS 2    TH 15    EM 0
8981 km/s      Armour 1-1       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.5
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 16%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 1    5YR 14    Max Repair 16 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Sienar Fleer Systems STD-P54  Twin Ion Drives (1)    Power 15    Fuel Use 4676.54%    Signature 15    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 3,000 Litres    Range 0.1 billion km (4 hours at full power)

Cydyne Corporation Twin Blaster Cannons (1x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 8,981 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 8.00%     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Sienar Fleet Systems BL5-YN  Targeting Computer System (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 8,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

You need a pretty big fire-control as well as the gun itself so smaller than this is probably really difficult. It is using the same tehch level as that othet ship.
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2020, 05:57:29 PM »
This was the best 'small' fighter I could come up with back when I was designing the original Cetan B carrier:

Code: [Select]
Piranha-G class Fighter      108 tons       6 Crew       41.8 BP       TCS 2    TH 35    EM 0
16296 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.5
Maint Life 29.83 Years     MSP 24    AFR 1%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 17.5 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive  EP35.00 (1)    Power 35    Fuel Use 2241.05%    Signature 35    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 7,000 Litres    Range 0.5 billion km (8 hours at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-8.00 (1x4)    Range 16,000km     TS: 16,296 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 8.00%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R16-TS16000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 16,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Somewhat larger than your TIE fighter but also faster and longer ranged.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2020, 06:01:24 PM »
Missiles might be the way to go on the tiny fighter concept. As I recall, MFC can be designed down to 5 ton size and I'm pretty sure you can get a couple million km range out of those.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 423
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2020, 06:06:46 PM »
Missiles might be the way to go on the tiny fighter concept. As I recall, MFC can be designed down to 5 ton size and I'm pretty sure you can get a couple million km range out of those.
Easily, yes. My fighters use a 10-ton MFC for >30mkm range, and that's at fairly low tech (although also medium resolution).
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2020, 06:51:41 PM »
I came up with this by reving my old Piranha design:

Code: [Select]
Piranha III-MF class Fighter      23 tons       1 Crew       13 BP       TCS 0    TH 1    EM 0
10919 km/s      Armour 1-0       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.1
Maint Life 20.17 Years     MSP 20    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 15 MSP
Magazine 1   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Guild Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP5.00 (1)    Power 5.0    Fuel Use 2262.74%    Signature 0.8000    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 1,000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (8 hours at full power)

Guild Size 1 Box Launcher (1)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Guild Missile Fire Control FC9-R1 (20%) (1)     Range 9.1m km    Resolution 1
Guild Size 1 Missile (1)    Speed: 75,000 km/s    End: 0m     Range: 0.2m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 350/210/105

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Tiny, with limited range and only a single missile. But I could fit 652 of them into a Cetan B so that makes for an impressive fighter swarm.

I will see if I can come up with a similar missile bomber for my size 6 missile design.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2849
  • Thanked: 677 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2020, 07:00:08 PM »
These small scouts are not an ultimate solution, but they are a very cheap, flexible and fast one to both produce and research. So they take very little resources for how efficient they are.

The biggest problem with engaging a tiny scout is the ability to actually see it which is very hard for other small crafts. Most likely every scout would also be paired wit a 20t res 1 scout to detect any incoming crafts and missiles so they can turn of their sensors and vanish. So you would need your own tiny scout with a res 1 to chase after them and then you can fire missiles on them, the FC should not be a big problem here.

Another solution is a small corvette with the mission to hunt small crafts and fighters that have a 500t res 1 sensors, say a ship at around 2500t or so. It is small enough to be stealth against most high and medium sensors and long range enough on the res 1 to detect the small scouts before being detected itself, you can then just launch anti-craft missiles from the corvette directly.

Then you could counter that and they counter that and around you go...  ;)
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2020, 07:03:21 PM »
The missile bomber with the size 6 launcher is not working out so well as a size 6 launcher is larger than the previously posted Piranha-III. So I think a stealth fast scout instead will be the next design challenge.

Cloaking device tech is currently limited to minimum cloak size of 500 tons which eliminates the cloaked tiny fighter concept.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 07:06:00 PM by liveware »
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Carrier Strike Group Critique
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2020, 07:29:32 PM »
I came up with this scout craft after some design revisionism:

Code: [Select]
Piranha III-S class Fighter      23 tons       1 Crew       14.7 BP       TCS 0    TH 1    EM 0
10919 km/s      Armour 1-0       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 1/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 18.87 Years     MSP 20    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 2    Max Repair 15 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Guild Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP5.00 (1)    Power 5.0    Fuel Use 2262.74%    Signature 0.8000    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 1,000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (8 hours at full power)

Guild Active Search Sensor AS4-R1 (20%) (1)     GPS 4     Range 4.5m km    MCR 408.7k km    Resolution 1
Guild Thermal Sensor TH0.1-1.4 (20%) (1)     Sensitivity 1.4     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  9.4m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

I am not sure if the current sensor configuration is optimal. With this setup I could cruise around with actives engaged until I find a contact, then drop actives and run away to the edge of thermal range and hide and wait and see what I can see, possibly with support from my missile fighters. Alternatively I could replace the thermal sensor with an EM sensor, or drop the active sensor altogether and run with passive EM and thermals only.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...