Narrowband Active Sensors

[symon]

I endorse Andrew's idea. Seems to solve the problem without creating yet another package of sensors to mount and avoids any hint of 'specialness'.

[saw]

I vote for the Narrow Band sensors.  I think the ability to engage Fighters and FACs at 30-50 MM km, will introduce some interesting new consideration into missle and missile ship design.  Now, for the most part it makes the most sense to make either big long rangeship killer missiles or small fast AMMs.  With antifigther operations there will be a spot for more medium size missiles for the role.  This can lead to some design decisionis in missile ship design about large more capable ASM or smaller but more numerous ones with the added benefit that the smaller missiles launchers would also serve effectively in the Antifighter role.  It would also impact Area Defense ship design as it is always better to shoot the archers rather than the arrows.

Just some thoughts from a long time lurker.

Steve

[sloanjh]

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

[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.  

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

[Andrew]

I prefer that detecting fighters with a reasonable size sensor be practical , I consider size 12 sensors to be huge , having to use a sensor of size 50 to detect fighters at a good range annoys me. But I have notreally encountered it in game play yet

[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.
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?

[Maximillian]

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

[Brian Neumann]

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.

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

[UnLimiTeD]

I think we should have Narrowbands just detect ships of the actual size, well, maybe with that dropoff, and not ships of bigger size with cloaking fields.
It wouldn't make sense.
Or we need a rework of cloaking fields.

[dooots]

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.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.
Although I have no real problem with the original idea.

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.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.  

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.  

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.

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

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

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.  

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.

Steve

[Brian Neumann]

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.

Steve

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.)

Brian

[UnLimiTeD]

This could indeed pose a problem. I'd say it should probably be 5+1% of the upper, so 995-1000 +-5.

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.