How Will C# Effect Carriers?

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I haven't closely followed C# development but was wondering how new features added to the game will effect carrier operations. Will they be easier to manage? Will they even be viable?

[Steve Walmsley]

I haven't closely followed C# development but was wondering how new features added to the game will effect carrier operations. Will they be easier to manage? Will they even be viable?

So far I have found it is easier to design small craft because the sensors can be tiny and still useful.

With the new Fleet Organization, fighters are a lot easier to manage because you can put the strike group in a sub-fleet and then detach/launch that strike group very easily.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I haven't closely followed C# development but was wondering how new features added to the game will effect carrier operations. Will they be easier to manage? Will they even be viable?

So far I have found it is easier to design small craft because the sensors can be tiny and still useful.

With the new Fleet Organization, fighters are a lot easier to manage because you can put the strike group in a sub-fleet and then detach/launch that strike group very easily.

Do you think big carriers have the advantage over big battleships? Carriers can more easily swap out their primary armaments (fighters) for the latest and greatest and can dedicate a much larger percentage of its tonnage to fleet support systems like sensors, jump-engines, and supplies as they don't have to invest as much into weaponry and armor. This also means they can dedicate more to engines to be faster than battleships as well.

At least, that's why real-world carriers are better than battleships. I don't have enough experience with the game to know if it holds true in Aurora as well, but from reading about the systems I think it might.

I've always wondered whether carriers would be dominate in space as well as on the oceans...

[ExChairman]

I haven't closely followed C# development but was wondering how new features added to the game will effect carrier operations. Will they be easier to manage? Will they even be viable?

So far I have found it is easier to design small craft because the sensors can be tiny and still useful.

With the new Fleet Organization, fighters are a lot easier to manage because you can put the strike group in a sub-fleet and then detach/launch that strike group very easily.

Do you think big carriers have the advantage over big battleships? Carriers can more easily swap out their primary armaments (fighters) for the latest and greatest and can dedicate a much larger percentage of its tonnage to fleet support systems like sensors, jump-engines, and supplies as they don't have to invest as much into weaponry and armor. This also means they can dedicate more to engines to be faster than battleships as well.

At least, that's why real-world carriers are better than battleships. I don't have enough experience with the game to know if it holds true in Aurora as well, but from reading about the systems I think it might.

I've always wondered whether carriers would be dominate in space as well as on the oceans...

Carriers do dominate... But its a hell of investments... They control locale space until they run out of fuel and missiles... Of course this applies to missile ships to. Their fighters work very good against the AI´s but will probably have to be a bit redesigned against a human opponent.
Like in the real world carriers spelled the doom for capital ships, even thou they tried to stay by increasing the AA weapons, a lot... But its still a fat target to bomb/torpedo and to stay safer you need carriers to protect the other capitals. When we start to build the super carriers they can, if supplies, almost win a war by them self.  But being able to upgrade and change the fighters is usually better/cheaper than upgrading your battleships but on the other hand my battleship usually are beam combatant, sometime with a battery off one shot missile tubes...

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I haven't closely followed C# development but was wondering how new features added to the game will effect carrier operations. Will they be easier to manage? Will they even be viable?

So far I have found it is easier to design small craft because the sensors can be tiny and still useful.

With the new Fleet Organization, fighters are a lot easier to manage because you can put the strike group in a sub-fleet and then detach/launch that strike group very easily.

Do you think big carriers have the advantage over big battleships? Carriers can more easily swap out their primary armaments (fighters) for the latest and greatest and can dedicate a much larger percentage of its tonnage to fleet support systems like sensors, jump-engines, and supplies as they don't have to invest as much into weaponry and armor. This also means they can dedicate more to engines to be faster than battleships as well.

At least, that's why real-world carriers are better than battleships. I don't have enough experience with the game to know if it holds true in Aurora as well, but from reading about the systems I think it might.

I've always wondered whether carriers would be dominate in space as well as on the oceans...

Carriers do dominate... But its a hell of investments... They control locale space until they run out of fuel and missiles... Of course this applies to missile ships to. Their fighters work very good against the AI´s but will probably have to be a bit redesigned against a human opponent.
Like in the real world carriers spelled the doom for capital ships, even thou they tried to stay by increasing the AA weapons, a lot... But its still a fat target to bomb/torpedo and to stay safer you need carriers to protect the other capitals. When we start to build the super carriers they can, if supplies, almost win a war by them self.  But being able to upgrade and change the fighters is usually better/cheaper than upgrading your battleships but on the other hand my battleship usually are beam combatant, sometime with a battery off one shot missile tubes...

Would you say that at the end of the day carriers only accomplish just as much as missiles ships with extra steps?

[ExChairman]

I haven't closely followed C# development but was wondering how new features added to the game will effect carrier operations. Will they be easier to manage? Will they even be viable?

So far I have found it is easier to design small craft because the sensors can be tiny and still useful.

With the new Fleet Organization, fighters are a lot easier to manage because you can put the strike group in a sub-fleet and then detach/launch that strike group very easily.

Do you think big carriers have the advantage over big battleships? Carriers can more easily swap out their primary armaments (fighters) for the latest and greatest and can dedicate a much larger percentage of its tonnage to fleet support systems like sensors, jump-engines, and supplies as they don't have to invest as much into weaponry and armor. This also means they can dedicate more to engines to be faster than battleships as well.

At least, that's why real-world carriers are better than battleships. I don't have enough experience with the game to know if it holds true in Aurora as well, but from reading about the systems I think it might.

I've always wondered whether carriers would be dominate in space as well as on the oceans...

Carriers do dominate... But its a hell of investments... They control locale space until they run out of fuel and missiles... Of course this applies to missile ships to. Their fighters work very good against the AI´s but will probably have to be a bit redesigned against a human opponent.
Like in the real world carriers spelled the doom for capital ships, even thou they tried to stay by increasing the AA weapons, a lot... But its still a fat target to bomb/torpedo and to stay safer you need carriers to protect the other capitals. When we start to build the super carriers they can, if supplies, almost win a war by them self.  But being able to upgrade and change the fighters is usually better/cheaper than upgrading your battleships but on the other hand my battleship usually are beam combatant, sometime with a battery off one shot missile tubes...

Would you say that at the end of the day carriers only accomplish just as much as missiles ships with extra steps?

It might, one of the pluses for carrier based fighters is range and then speed. Fighters can be used as system defences, but still excells in carrier strikes mode. But we have to wait for the "finished" C+ to see what is possible...

[Father Tim]

Carriers are terrible, and their fighters and missiles are worse. . .

. . . in a nebula.

- - -

Most 'space terrain' throws a major wrench in Aurora's conventional wisdom, and it only takes one 'interesting' system in the way of your offensive to convert your mighty fleet into so many expensive target drones.

[Iranon]

I think the most important change is the sensor model.
Tiny fighters will rule missile combat, at least without a ridiculous investment into stealth, electronic warfare, sensors and fire controls.

Carriers will probably be somewhat attractive. Changes to the engine model mean independent long-range fighters would have lower performance than they do now.

[SevenOfCarina]

I think the most important change is the sensor model.
Tiny fighters will rule missile combat, at least without a ridiculous investment into stealth, electronic warfare, sensors and fire controls.

Carriers will probably be somewhat attractive. Changes to the engine model mean independent long-range fighters would have lower performance than they do now.

I think it's important to consider the substantial improvement to EM sensors in this dynamic. Quoting Steve;

Active Sensor Range = SQRT((Racial Sensor Strength * HS * Racial EM Sensitivity * (Resolution ^ (1/1.5)) / PI) * 1,000,000 km

EM Detection Range = SQRT(Racial EM Sensitivity * HS * Target Signature ) * 250,000 km.
Active Sensor Signature = Resolution * Racial Sensor Strength * HS

This means that the size of the EM sensor required to detect an active sensor at its own range is given as:
Required EM HS = (16/PI) / (Resolution ^ (1/3))

Average fighter sensors will be in the 2-5 HS range, high-resolution sensors will be needed to remain competitive at range.
For a conservative 80 HS resolution sensor, the required EM sensor is only 1.20 HS.
For an optimistic 16 HS resolution sensor, the required EM sensor is still only 2.10 HS.
For a large 4 HS resolution sensor like on a major warship, the required EM sensor is 3.30 HS
For a 1 HS resolution missile sensor, the required EM  sensor is 5.10 HS
Even accounting for the fact that missile fire controls are four times as quiet as active sensors, a ~400t EM sensor is neither very expensive nor so large that it cannot be spammed. It's absolutely possible to stuff EM sensors as large as 800t into a major warship.

And electronic warfare isn't too expensive either. The first tech is only 5000 RP, and it's not likely you can just skip it considering how vital it is for both missile and beam warfare. Obtaining effective ECM or ECCM for fighters is an added cost though, and the 15t version is a flat 20% less effective than the full-sized 150t version. Closing the range further reduces the required EM sensor size.

IMO, fleet combat will likely turn into a peekaboo game of who flicks their actives on first, considering passives will mostly outrange them. Fighters will still be somewhat useful as expendable scouting assets, but drones might be better at that.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The sensor model in C# surely favour fighters and FAC allot more than in VB6 Aurora.

Carriers will probably me more important than before.

Not only that but we will likely see more dispersed formations of ships now because of how the sensor model works. It will likely be more dangerous to put all eggs in one basket.

Not sure that drones will dominate the active sensor scene, passive sensors perhaps but not active. Active drones are a bit too easy to destroy with passive EM missiles. Passive EM missiles can be fired without active guidance quite easily in stationary drones.

[Hazard]

With the changes to the thermal sensor mechanics that note that ships that are not moving have a considerably decreased signature, thermal sensor equipped missiles may make a very useful early ambush weapon, while as shields become more powerful and thus louder in signature an active shield system would be just as vulnerable to a long range passive missile strike. Only thing you need to do is guesstimate where the missile is likely to pick up the target's signature when they both arrive and drop a few waypoints there in a spread to make sure you get at least a few in range.

Then just launch at the waypoints from very long range, with the missiles expected to be nearly empty by the time they hit the target even if it directly flees in the other direction.


And that's not counting the possibility of dropping a number of slow but with very large warhead missiles from detection range on a planet with passive em sensors.

[Steve Walmsley]

In my current campaign, the deep space tracking stations on a planet were picking up emissions from a size 6 active sensor missile at ninety million kilometres

The thermal signature of the missiles was detected at ten million kilometres. I've noticed that in general missiles are being detected on thermal before active, even with dedicated anti-missile sensors.

[Hazard]

Well, there went that plan. Clearly, covert strikes are most likely not a thing, especially as tech progresses. Unless you are willing to invest crazy amounts of money in EM/TH shielded missiles, and that's even possible.

[Bremen]

Well, you can still launch covert strikes where the ships launching the missiles aren't detected. It just seems like the missiles themselves are pretty easy to spot, which might actually make for more interesting tactical play IMHO. And it doesn't invalidate anti-missile actives since you still need them to actually engage incoming missiles.

It also occurs to me that it will have a similar effect on passive seeker missiles, probably giving them a much larger lock on range and probably making a small passive sensor package on missiles the default since they help reduce missiles wasted to overkilling.

[Hazard]

If missile engines are easy to spot (90 million kilometers is really long range), any ship launching them will have been spotted far from launch range due to its heat signature.

You are right about passive seeker missiles and ships though.