Author Topic: Passive Engagement  (Read 2989 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 853
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2014, 01:15:38 AM »
You need a fire-control to fire a missile. But you can have a 0.1HS fire-control to fire at any way-point in a system, so it would essentially be as firing without a fire-control.

This whole thing is kind of dumb that we have to do these calculations in order to fire missiles with sensors. If we like to fire on an echo we should be able to do that and the game should do the trajectory calculation for us. We should also be able to build missiles with or without a datalink connection. That is, missiles that can be communicated with and changed during flight or missiles that are just fired at a point and who then use their own sensors to find a target. Although, missile without a datalink should start finding a target not only at the destination but after a certain distance travelled which you set when firing the missile.

I think this would all be pretty simple changes to the game.

If you have a passive contact and a missile with a data-link you should be able to guide it into the vicinity of that target, but that missile would need to rely on its own sensors to actually strike the target. You only use the fire-control to guide the missile and make corrections if and when the passive contact make any significant course changes.

If you know the trajectory and speed of the target when you fire a missile the game should automatically be able to create a way-point at the potential intercept point.

If you have no data-link to the missile it will go wherever you tell it to go and will use its own sensors to find a target along the way, it will activate after a certain amount of time stated by you when it is fired.

If you have a data-link you can alter the missiles target point at any time, even switching target if you like. The game should automatically respawn missile way-points if a target changes course and there is an active data-link.

The data-link should be a small component you add to the missiles just like sensors, based on your active and EM sensitivity technology. The longer the range you want to be able to communicate with the missile the bigger this component will be. When the missile is outside this range it must rely on its own sensors and move towards the last know coordinate of the target.

I really believe these things should be in the game for realism sake. If you can guide a missile with an active sensor through a fire-control you can do the same with a passive contact.

There should also be active jamming options in the game, both for heat and EM interference. Not just passive ECM as we now have. You should be able to spoof on board sensors on missiles so they miss or detonate in the wrong place. Then you should be able to use ECCM on missiles to counter that etc...

The game should be more like Command: modern air naval operations that is an awesome game, much like a modern version of Harpoon. Steve should take a look at that and steal some ideas of how space battles could be like using similar techniques in Aurora.  ;)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 01:34:47 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Online alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 979
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2014, 02:37:37 AM »
The main problem here is that in reality you don't have 100% exact estimates on enemy speed and heading like we do in Aurora. So the passive launch of a missile without data-link can end up a significant distance off target even if the target makes zero course changes, even long enough for it to be outside the range of it's onboard sensors and miss.

Such missiles in reality would be targeted at for example real-time sattelite images or sound emissions ( passive sonar ), neither which will have very exact information on speed or course. Especially without monitoring the target for a longer period of time.


There is also the performance problems associated with having all military ships at all times during war do zig-zag manouvers to try to fool potential passive launches, like they would often in reality.

But as stated previously in the thread it would be very cool to have and a great addition to the game if possible. Another important point is to not add it as a player only feature, the AI needs to understand and be able to use it too.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 02:40:27 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 265
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2014, 02:40:56 AM »
Just curious. With the whole firing at waypoints and trying to rely on the missiles active sensors rather than anything else. Does this mean you could possibly run a ship with no active sensors (or maybe even no missile fire control?) to accomplish that? Like, mines don't need active locks, but still need a fire control?
Yes. The Fire at Waypoint command allows you to fire without FC or sensor. I use this for geosurvey buoys and early warning buoys deployed by my Gravsurvey ships.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 853
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2014, 03:37:41 AM »
The main problem here is that in reality you don't have 100% exact estimates on enemy speed and heading like we do in Aurora. So the passive launch of a missile without data-link can end up a significant distance off target even if the target makes zero course changes, even long enough for it to be outside the range of it's onboard sensors and miss.

Such missiles in reality would be targeted at for example real-time satellite images or sound emissions ( passive sonar ), neither which will have very exact information on speed or course. Especially without monitoring the target for a longer period of time.


There is also the performance problems associated with having all military ships at all times during war do zig-zag manouvers to try to fool potential passive launches, like they would often in reality.

But as stated previously in the thread it would be very cool to have and a great addition to the game if possible. Another important point is to not add it as a player only feature, the AI needs to understand and be able to use it too.

Yes, it would be more realistic if both passive and active as well would not be an all or nothing thing. You might need to track an enemy for a while to get a very good fix and launching missiles without data-link should always come at a risk of the on board sensors being inadequate. There need to to be a risk involved or you didn't need to use data-linked missiles very often which you should.

In my own games I rarely use the AI for anything but the Swarm and Precursors so I can easily use way-points to fire at passive contacts, I can even just park a TG (reduce speed to ridiculous low speed) in the same spot just to make it easier and just imagine that it is moving, at least if it has not detected the threat. I might also require passive contacts to be made from several ships, even better from different locations before firing missiles. Once missiles are spotted the ship will set maximum speed and move more appropriately.

I do think the mechanics surrounding launching and handling missiles could be improved in many areas.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 853
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2014, 04:03:34 AM »
Another thing I would like to have is narrower search areas for combat sensors so they could be integrated into smaller platforms for a decent size. Basically the sensor would only find object in a say 20-30% cone in the same direction you are travelling (or last heading if standing still). That way you could have better active on smaller platforms to direct missiles. There should be a difference on wide area search sensors and narrower search sensors with limited view but also smaller area to actually paint a target.

Perhaps such sensors need to be integrated into a ships own Fire-control sensors and can't be shared between ships as a drawback. So it would mainly be for giving platforms their own capability to scan and shoot at targets you have already detected. These active sensors should also emit much less of an EM, perhaps ten time less the EM power of a standard sensor.
 

Online alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 979
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2014, 05:36:00 AM »
Another thing I would like to have is narrower search areas for combat sensors so they could be integrated into smaller platforms for a decent size. Basically the sensor would only find object in a say 20-30% cone in the same direction you are travelling (or last heading if standing still). That way you could have better active on smaller platforms to direct missiles. There should be a difference on wide area search sensors and narrower search sensors with limited view but also smaller area to actually paint a target.

Perhaps such sensors need to be integrated into a ships own Fire-control sensors and can't be shared between ships as a drawback. So it would mainly be for giving platforms their own capability to scan and shoot at targets you have already detected. These active sensors should also emit much less of an EM, perhaps ten time less the EM power of a standard sensor.

Interesting suggestion. And would be cool to also have the same for the passive sensors that don't need to be omnidirectional.

For simplicity of concept I would suggest making it an extra sensor/FC option where you can select half ( sees everything forward ) or 1/4 arcs with x2 or x4 longer effective range.
 

Offline linkxsc

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • l
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2014, 11:32:40 AM »
1 thing i kinda wish (and is why i made an excel doc to do all the missile math) is that when putting 1msp of sensors on a missile, you had the option for it to scale the reactor so it gave you literally 1msp of sensor/reactor.

Its proving to be an annoyance on my sub-1msp missiles to put into mines/mirvs
Just enough wh for 1 damage, a tiny bit of fuel, tiny engine, tiny maneuver, tiny active sensor. Whole thing is .4msp large, soA size 20 launcher, lobs as size 4 cruise section, to bring 40 micro missiles to the target destination. Will it br effective? Probably not. But itll be entertaining.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 853
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2014, 02:10:27 PM »
1 thing i kinda wish (and is why i made an excel doc to do all the missile math) is that when putting 1msp of sensors on a missile, you had the option for it to scale the reactor so it gave you literally 1msp of sensor/reactor.

Its proving to be an annoyance on my sub-1msp missiles to put into mines/mirvs
Just enough wh for 1 damage, a tiny bit of fuel, tiny engine, tiny maneuver, tiny active sensor. Whole thing is .4msp large, soA size 20 launcher, lobs as size 4 cruise section, to bring 40 micro missiles to the target destination. Will it br effective? Probably not. But itll be entertaining.

To be honest I would not use mini/micro missiles against the AI because it can't deal with such strategies very efficiently. The AI is designed to deal with regular full size launcher ships. But other than that it depends on how fast and agile those micro missiles are. In general you don't need to abuse deficiencies in the AI, it is easy enough as it is to deal with.  ;)

Against a human opponent very large MIRV missiles can be dealt with by destroying them before they release their payload, a size 20 missile can be seen and targeted at very long distances. As mines they can be more effective though, but larger payload are usually more effective especially when used as mines where the reaction time to shoot them down can be very short if any at all.

So, its hard to say how effective you missile will be without knowing their design and the opposing forces general speed and capability.

If the micro missile is relatively slow a good counter would be numerous small Gauss cannons and thick armour. Sandpapering thick armour will be very costly in resources for each damage done, or simply destroy the missile before it releases the payload with long range AMM missiles or picket escorts.
 

Offline linkxsc

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • l
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2014, 06:11:03 PM »
Well it was a half serious, half ridiculious design.

Basically i lost 3 ships jumping into a system to an ai gausscannon covered 12kt ship sitting on the jump point. Agter a few attempts to push him out, resulting in over 100 missiles or assorted type being taken out by its heavy pd, i noticed that on its way to a planet to refuel was my "scout cruiser" a 18kt ship with 4 s20 launchers on it (for deploying sensor buoys around systems).

So i threw together a handful of size 20 missile designs, and had the planet crank out a few. (A size 16 asm with size4 booster. The 40 missile mirv above. And a 4x4 mirv with the same booster). The real intention was that with all of the missiles separating to the target at the same range, the micros would eat up a lot of the gauss fire, which they did. And the 4x4s promptly blapped the ship to death, which left the 16, to lollygag around a few seconds and take out another 3500t ship that i didnt know was there.

Kinda sad that it worked so well though. Ai certainly isnt ready to handle big barrages of tiny missiles, and in the future im gonna avoid using them (though the 4x4s werent so power gamey, and i could do those in a fac with box launchers)
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 853
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Passive Engagement
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2014, 02:01:31 AM »
Yes, the mechanic does not work well with mixed salvoes of large and small missiles. The game will always concentrate on the more numerous missiles before the few which breaks the game in terms of any balance. So mixing many small missiles with few high yield large missiles should be avoided and seen as an exploit of the mechanics, at least in my opinion.

Otherwise I'm glad to hear you did well, that alien ship probably deserved what they got... ;)
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54