WC wargame idea

[casperXJ]

An old copy of Harpoon made me think of starting a wargame based on WC. Here's how it would go:

You're the CAG on a fleet carrier and are responsible for assigning pilots and fighters on missions that the captain assigns you. You have a certain number of fighters, pilots, fuel, and missiles at the beginning of the game which you must carefully use. There are 3 phases to every mission:

Preflight - You assign fighters to the mission and group them in wings. Each fighter also is assigned a pilot, missiles, and a certain amount of fuel. Unlike in the games, not all fighters will have full missile complements.

Inflight - You launch each fighter by wing. You direct them to certain nav points, where they engage enemy fighters and capships. You must also direct SAR to ejected pilots before the enemy gets to them, and can send out refuelers and SWACS craft. Once combat is completed, you land all fighters and support craft.

Postflight - Ejected pilots must sit out 2 missions. Wounded pilots must sit out 1 mission. You assign skill increases and medals to pilots with a certain number of kills. Damaged fighters must sit out 1 mission. Fuel and missiles must be offloaded.

This game would be in Java and have single-player only initially.

Tell me what you think...

[Bob McDob]

That actually sounds entertaining and plausible. In other words, better than 99% of fan projects out there. I think a couple of people have tried tackling something like this without success.

[Hornet]

Cool idea mate.

I've got some ideas for doing a WC wargame my self (based more on the Battlefleet Gothic rules), if you'd like to bounce around ideas e-mail me.

[Slawter]

Good idea, Casper

I really do like this idea. It sounds cool and its not something you see much of anymore. It sounds like a cool concept, I'd love to see where it goes.

[casperXJ]

I've started progress on the game, and have some questions for the community:

- Which era would you like to play first? (WC1, WC2, WC3, WC4, Prophecy, SO)
- Would you want to play the Kilrathi, Nephilim, or Border Worlds?
- Do you mind if the game is 2D?
- How long should a campaign be?
- How should capships be killed?
- Would you like to play in multiple systems at a time (with jump points connecting - kind of like Conquest: Frontier Wars)?
- Would you like to be able to build new ships?
- Should I address the fuel and missile supply problem? (Basically, do you want an infinite or limited amount of missiles and afterburner fuel to put on your fighters? SHould I keep track of regular fuel?)

That's it for now. Have fun with them, and I'll check back some time with updates.

BTW, Happy Thanksgiving!

- Which era would you like to play first? (WC1, WC2, WC3, WC4, Prophecy, SO)

Honestly I think that it would be incredible to have the game span the entire serires, of course the game would have to follow the story. So the outcomes should only dictate what will happen to your fleet within the timeline and not the entire storyline.

- Would you want to play the Kilrathi, Nephilim, or Border Worlds?

Yes, having a choice while playing within the timeline will enhance the entertainment value. This way, we will be able to see the war from "both sides".

- Do you mind if the game is 2D?

3D would be awsome, but 2D wouldn't be bad if the game play was there, and there was a way to mock 3D space combat. Capital ships moving on x,y,z access; as well as other ships.

- How long should a campaign be?

As long as it takes to tell a good story.

- How should capships be killed?

Same way that allo capita; ships are killed, with torpedoes and a shitload of firepower.

- Would you like to play in multiple systems at a time (with jump
points connecting - kind of like Conquest: Frontier Wars)?

Yes. This would allow you to tel a better story as well as immerse players within the WC universe more.

- Would you like to be able to build new ships?

Not until the very end of the timeline, I don;t think that it would be appropriate for an Admiral to build a military. Although, if you are takingf this from an empire building style game, then yes.

- Should I address the fuel and missile supply problem? (Basically, do you want an infinite or limited amount of missiles and afterburner fuel to put on your fighters? SHould I keep track of regular fuel?)

Yes... that's all a part of the strategy

[ChrisReid]

You should plan to make it manageable. Don't think about incorporating all sorts of extra stuff until you've already got the basics done.

[GeeBot]

I completely agree with what Chris said. Don't worry about making it 3D with lots of axes and stuff; personally, as a wargame, I think the Homeworld series has shown that to be not all that fun--it's just too hard to coordinate any really clever 3D tactics in the absence of anything that would work as terrain. On the other hand, I've been playing a few more rounds of Civ3 lately, and it's been a lot of fun. I think the rule of thumb here should be, "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master". The basic gameplay should be straight forward, but there should be a subtle interplay which makes the best possible choice less than clear-cut.

I think the most promise for a fun game would lie in taking a higher level approach than just a CAG on a single carrier--I mean, really, you send maybe 6 fighters off to patrol some navpoints (if we stick to the WC formula), and how exciting is that? Most of the real fun of WC comes in the nitty-gritty dogfighting. Rather than take such a restrictive view, I think it'd be better if you were managing a larger fleet. You could still have the carrier-level and fighter-level element, but you could have more of them.

Also, I think it's inevitable that such a game will have to be multiplayer, since that's likely the only way to get an effective opponent on a shoestring budget. In which case, if I know my war games, the main focus would be on the rules and the scenarios. It should be definitely easy to create (and hopefully trade) new scenarios (you mention Harpoon, which is an excellent example). If you keep the graphics simply (maybe just a hex/square grid overlaid on a bitmap), it should be easy for people to modify.

I'm not sure what level of technological sophistication would be required, and whether you'd be up to the challenge, but it's likely that you could adapt an existing product, or make it a pen & paper system, with the option of going computerized in the future.

[Jason_Ryock]

A pen and paper version sounds fascinating, but wouldn't that require system maps?

I mean, for any kind of planetary manuvering like they did in End Run (And who the hell doesn't want to slingshot a carrier around a planet with gravity?) You'd have to know where the planet was and where the jump point you were lining up with was...

I don't mean to say it's a bad idea, but wouldn't that involve alot of guesswork that wouldn't necessarily be cannon?

(I edited this post after thinking a little, apologies to anyone this throws off)

I guess I run into a few difficulties with the thought process of this project (All though, I appluad the idea and the effort, I'd like to see what comes of it).

Firstly, never underestimate the importance of SWACS. =P

But seriously, if you run a pen and paper version of the game, you have to have at least three people, the competitors, and a neutral third party to process the information, otherwise each side has to know where the others ships are...while you might insist that has to be the case to do combat, what about sneaking around for surprise attacks? Anyone whose got any good ideas for this, well, I'd love to hear 'em.

On the complexity Note...it is good to keep it simple at first, but at the same time I'd hate to play a game like this without the ability to manuver on three axes. I suppose if it's planned for the future that's great. I think that three axes combat is something long forgotten about.


The True spirit of WC is in the cockpit, 3d combat, space combat, this is all well and true. But there's also something more about it that I think this kind of project could capture well. Sort of a differant side of the same WC universe.

Hmm, I'm rambling. Time to shut up.

[Slawter]

I think we should have some capship building. Has anyone here played Uncharted Waters: New Horizons? I thought of ship building on lines of that game.

We should have marines too. Preferrably lots of types, like infantry, armored, that crap.

And make SWACS more important

[GeeBot]

When I said pen & paper, I assumed that some of the paper would be some "system maps" and maybe some little figurines you could plop down on it. I just meant that it might be a good idea to start with a non-computerized format. There are zillions of those, all you have to do is publish a book and you've got yourself a game.

The Starfire games might be something to look into. The system is simple, so it should be easy to adapt, and it has various extensions that would probably work well with a WC theme. I'm only speculating here, though; I don't know how much fun it is to play, as I don't have any experience with it.

[casperXJ]

Thanks for the input, and feel free to continue - I'll just add my comments here:

- Here's how I think I'll implement capships & capship killing:

Capships have a core strength (like WC4), and phase shield emitters (like WCP).
Torpedoes do no damage to the shields, but lots to the core. They do not require destruction of the shield emitters
Regular guns and missiles can destroy shield emitters, and then may damage the core. They do not deal damage when the shield emitters still exist.

This gives a good balance beween WC3/4 and WCP methods, and allows regular fighters to destroy capships (though it's very hard)

- The first release will be definitely 1 system at a time, 2D, single-player as Confed only. I might not even have a campaign, if you really want to play it first, but just a skirmish setting. I can always add later.

- I hope you don't mind that the download size will be 15+ MB because I have to include the Java Runtime Environment. (Or learn C++, and I don't want to.) Compared to UE or Standoff, it'll be tiny.

- SWACS will be important - you won't be able to see anything that you don't have a ship within radar range of, and SWACS craft have very high radar ranges.

- Maybe I should change the name to "Wing Commander: Fleet Admiral." That way, you could request reinforcements, and have multiple carriers. However, that's a lot of micromanagement.

- I'm considering the Marines idea. What would they do? How would they work?

- Planetary combat is definitely on hold for now. Maybe after multiplayer starts working.

- Turns: I was envisioning that the single-player game would be close to realtime, but multiplayer would have to be turnbased.

- Since firewalls surround most systems, Java has a hard time connecting to other people's computers. What I may do is create a text message that can update the software client as to the enemy's status. You'll generate a message every turn, then send it through IRC to the other person, who'll put it in his client and it'll update itself.

One more thing - this will take a while. After all, I'm creating a game from scratch. I'll try to post updates and any questions on the forums, so you'll have some input.

[Jason_Ryock]

Slawter! Yay!

Join the capaign for the Preservation of SWACS tactis!

Hehe. I think next to me Slawter is the only one who cares about SWACS and their importance to the WC Fleet...

[Chernikov]

Nah, we just need Really Big Carriers that carry Hundreds of Fighters and fly Lots of Missions to see ahead of them.

:P

[LeHah]

Once in a great while, I play Battlefleet Gothic, which is a miniatures wargame. It's a lot of fun and has a really fantastic rules system. Sadly, fighters are considered nothing much more than ordiance. Every time I look at the game, I wished it was more fighter based.

We definitely should work out some type of wargame, be it P&P or otherwise.

[Delance]

Originally Posted by casperXJ

- Here's how I think I'll implement capships & capship killing:

Capships have a core strength (like WC4), and phase shield emitters (like WCP).
Torpedoes do no damage to the shields, but lots to the core. They do not require destruction of the shield emitters
Regular guns and missiles can destroy shield emitters, and then may damage the core. They do not deal damage when the shield emitters still exist.

Sounds neat, but I think you should the system of a game and stick with it. It would be simpler, too. Perhaps you should just start with WC1/WC3/WC4 where any weapon can damage capships.

[Jason_Ryock]

And on that note...(Well not really, but hell I have to say it anyway)

Don't forget the SWACS!

SWACs are the backbone to any fleet, necessary for their operation...I should really dig up that thread we had on SWACs/ELINT/Wild Weasel tactics in WC and glue Casper's eyes open until he reads it all...

[casperXJ]

I'll probably do that, delance - it'll be easier to program

[Slawter]

My answers are in bold


- SWACS will be important - you won't be able to see anything that you don't have a ship within radar range of, and SWACS craft have very high radar ranges.
That's good. This will make the SWACS just not targets but useful ships.

- Maybe I should change the name to "Wing Commander: Fleet Admiral." That way, you could request reinforcements, and have multiple carriers. However, that's a lot of micromanagement.
Maybe you can do something like Close Combat III where you have points to mount your unit. You begin with a fixed amount(depending on difficulty level) and get more by fulifying goals(Maybe you can have some bonus goals to get extra points)

- I'm considering the Marines idea. What would they do? How would they work?
You would have an amount of them. When you attack a capship, after lowering it's shields and causing a fixed amount to the ship's core, you should be able to cancel the attack and send the marines to the enemy ship. Your marines would fight against theirs. If you win, you capture the ship. If you lose, you simply lose the units. That would be a good way to get ships from other sides and not just Confed. Besides planetary combat.


BTW, Jason, i still defend the SWACS

[GeeBot]

I don't think there's any point to distributing the Java runtime with your application. It seems kinda silly, since many people already have it (not all, but they can download it easily enough). You might want to consider using Java WebStart to install your application over the Internet; I haven't used it myself, but it might be a cool option.

As for fighters being basically expendable munitions... well, to quote Tolwyn, "We're all expendable." The main advantage of fighters is numbers. As much as we like superheroics, it's really not all that realistic. Maybe you could have a "pilots" feature where you can install special supercharacters into select fighters to increase their effectiveness. Sorta a RPG element.

I really don't know what good the SWACS would do. It's a nice tactical option, but in the games, the main form of recon is fighter patrol and carrier-based radar. The SWACS were only used in like one mission in WCP (more's the pity), and I'm assuming their main use is long range, stealthy recon (since you don't need as many ships to cover the same amount of space, I assume it's stealthier).

[Jason_Ryock]

SWACS freaking own.

I can't believe they are so underutilized in Wing Commander.

I mean hell, Bondarevsky keeps an entire Kilrathi Assault force Occupied for HOURS with just TWO SWACs craft...

Imagine the results you could get if they escorted/assisted strikes and always flew duty over a carrier group.

Not to mention the targets they would become.

It's really a shame we don't see them more heavily used. There's only a single refernce, that I've been able to find, to ConFed SWACs craft (Aside from the SWACs in Prophecy/SO) and that's when Tolwyn reflects back to the SWACs Corvettes ConFed was using during the war...

I can't believe that a term like "Flattop" Would survive from WWII and not the tactics/usage strategy surronding the SWACs aircraft..

BTW, Casper, Have you ever played a game called Jane's Fleet Command?

If you haven't, I STRONGLY recomend you pick up a copy, it's a shitty game, and usually goes for around 10 bucks, but that game is nearly a complete project of what your trying to accomplish here, but with modern weapons and equipment as used by the United States. You might get some useful ideas out of it, such as how to handle combat in 3d, with only a 2d map, and how to use and show SWACs craft and others...

Check it up, it's damn cool.

Hmmm...I'm going to read my Electronic Warfare Manual again...

[Slawter]

I'm agree with Jason.

BTW, i'd buy the game myself but it's too expensive by here(Brazil)

[Jason_Ryock]

I didn't actully see GeeBots post until now...so lemme list out a couple of the SWACs potential missions/uses (Slawter, please fill in any gaps I leave out):

A note about the SWACs: SWAC stands for Spaceborne Warning and Control. In the US Navy (This is what I'm familar with so I draw my assumption accordingly) there is the AWACs and the EWACs craft. EWACs are referred to as Early Warning and Control, or so I have been led to believe. This means that the name "Warning and Control" is meant to be an indication of the capabiles of a WACs craft, including SWACs. That the name has been changed to SWACs instead of AWACs or EWACs doesn't change the potential mission roles, just the operating environment.

WAC's craft serve in a number of differant ways. Primarily they were created to Provide overhead radar that could "see" over the horizon (I stress that it is no less necessary to "see" around planets moons black holes and deep scan asteroid belts, all of which is tricky without a capital ship or numerous fighter patrols) and to Detect Enemy Fighter Craft at a greater ranged to provide Advanced Warning of a pending strike.

WAC's craft have another use: Air Traffic Control. They can line up friendles and ID Uknowns that pop up without having to vector off a fighter. They can arrange military positions so as not to interfere with Civilian traffic. Air superiority is maintained because of WACs aircraft.

On that note, below I will explore the potential uses of WACs craft specifically in a WC environment. This is difficult to do, we have very little information on the SWACs of WC, so some speculation was necessary. I do not feel personally that my speculation is so far off based as to be unreasonable however.

First a couple of assumptions here:
a: SWACs craft have Bomber like speeds, as opposed to Capital Ship speeds.
b: SWACs craft radar have the same or (more likely) greater range then Capital Ships Radar
[This is contentional, it might not be true. However, I personally feel extermely confident that SWACs craft have BETTER RADAR then capital ship, simply because that's the way SWACs (or AWACs) craft have always been built. If they DO have better radar, then it's obvious what good the SWACs would do.]
c: SWACs craft have far superior range then a fighter radar
d: SWACs craft can be docked with a carrier in the same way that a fighter can (And thus protected from attack/assault
e: SWACs have longer range communication (and faster/better qualty) then that of fighters.
[There's reference to a laser lock, which is hard to do with fighters because they manuver and it requires line of sight, an SWACs craft, when deployed properly and escorted well would not have to manuver, and could maintain that communication link back to the carrier.]

1) Forward Deployment : Deploying and SWACs craft inside of friendly fighter cover/patrol zone but forward of the Carriers position allows the "bubble" of radar coverage to be extended that much farther in front of the carrier (Or behind it, above it, or to the side of it) allowing for as much as a few minutes extra warning. This includes being able to look into the "shadow" created by a planet. You can fly the SWACs out and peek around behind the planet without jeapordizing the Carrier. It is important to mention here also, that if you have all your fighters on board and an SWACs for early warning, when a strike is detected you can launch your fighter for defense (many MORE fighters fully fueled and armed) then if you had to recall them from patrol. [How many times in WC do you come back from patrol to find the Carrier under attack?]

2) Patrol Missions : When flying a fighter sweep, or a patrol to search for enemy ships (Especially CapShips) taking an SWACs along would render it unnecessary to actually engage the ships to ID them. The SWACs would be able to ID and register the targets LONG before either side got in range to shoot at each other. This applies to patrols, search and rescues, and strike missions. One SWACs craft can cover the same area as at LEAST Two patrols, probably more likely three or four, and it can do it without flying to the edge of the zone to see whats there.

3) Simple Intelligence : Stationing an SWACs at strategic locations (Again, with fighter cover) in a system allows the Carrier (or Task Force Commander) to monitor a much larger area of the sytstem then he would normally be able to do, UNLESS he spread out his entire task force to use their Shipborne radars. SWACs craft could also be assigned to tail an Enemy Battle group, or group of fighters, at extreme range, back to their origin point. If such fighters did turn around to chase the SWACs it would know it long before they reached the craft and sooner then fighters/capships who might have been tailing the Enemy Ships instead. If her own radar range is greater then that of the target, an SWACs craft could track an enemy ship/battle group/fighter for hours without being detected and the target having no idea it's being followed. SWACs could also hang back in contested space after a withdrawal, providing valuable intelligence for re-taking the planet/system later. Also they could scout jump points, be the first ship through or the first deployed, giving vast radar range without the necessity of dumping all your fighters and sending them on patrol (leaving the Carrier defenseless).

4) Furball Support : Stationing an SWACs between Friendly fighters and Capital Ships can do two things. Firstly it supplies a linked communication point, and secondly it can vector friendly fighters onto intercept courses for enemy fighters heading towards a carrier (or her escorts) BEFORE the individual fighters would be able to pick them up on their own radar. SWACs craft can arrange targeting information and distrube it, no overlapping targets, and if someone needs help and hasn't called for it or doesn't know it SWACs can handle that as well.

5) Strike Support : In addition to Strike Corrdination (Which is a tricky manuver even with SWACs support) they again play the role of early detection, that is, they can see the enemy vessels before the fighters can, and possibly before the enemy ships can see them. Also they can watch the fighters and allow a senior offical back at the carrier (With a data link) to issue orders as the situation changes rather then having to rely on voice transmissions or the Carriers own radar. (I highly doubt that ConFed fighters preform a strike inside radar range of their own carrier, that would mean the Enemy Capital Ships could target the Carrier with their radar and possibly get a message off) Probably the most important factor is that it can tell the enemy group composition before the fighters are engaged, allowing them to break off before they are committed.

6) Friend or Foe : SWACs craft with a more powerful radar would help prevent Blue on Blue firings and to alleviate such threats. SWACs more powerful radar would be probably be better at detecting Stealth craft, as well.

7) ELINT : Stands for Electrionic Warfare. I have no idea if SWACs are capable of such things, but it certainly seems like a possability. This includes: Jamming Enemy Transmission, Friendly Encryption/Decryption, Long Range Communication, Jamming/Disruption of Radar. Certainly at least a few of these are possabilites for an SWACs craft operating in the ConFed fleet.

8) Weaponary : While it hasn't been developed yet (probably because ConFed's SWACs program is a little...slow) it's possible that a missile could be developed that could be fired from EXTREME Range (Something like the Pheonix Missile in the US that has a range of something like 120 miles) and vectored onto it's targets by the SWACs. Protecting friendly craft for that much longer and giving them that much more of an advantage. As well, an SWACs in atmosphere flying top cover could help direct orbital strikes down onto targets over a much greater range then a fighter or Marines on the ground. The same holds true for Torpedoes. It wouldn't take much to modify a ConFed Torpedo to be controllable by an SWACs craft. For that matter, the manuver in End Run/Fleet Action when they drop torpedos and expose their bellies while the torp homes could be done away with. Bombers wouldn't need second pilots anymore, just drop the Torpedo and have an SWACs crewman take it over, or guide it to it's target with a specially fitted laser lock. This last section is purely speculation, but the only reason we hafe to speculate about it is because SWACs have been ignored for to long in WC. Still, it would be nice to see some of these things in the game.

9) Decoy and Distraction : Let's not forgot what they used SWACs for in the book. Two SWACs craft kept an entire Kilrathi Battle Group hunting a phantom Terran Carrier group for HOURS. SWACs can do the same thing all over the fleet, dummying up signals radar and all sorts of adhoc impressions.

So there you have, Nine Potential Mission roles for an SWACs craft, most of these include two or three breakdowns of other kinds of the main missions.

Pft. And you didn't know what good it would do.

[Slawter]

I can't see you forgetting any ideas, but i'll try to get more.

The SWACS, if done that way, would really ROCK.

[Jason_Ryock]

I just edited my post, so read it again. =P

[Slawter]

Still cool

First of all guys I love this idea. This could be really cool if it gets of the ground. Are we (the Players) going to need any special downloads (i.e. secret ops) to run this thing? I only ask because its a relavent question in todays wing commander free age.

As for the On running SWACS discussion. I only have one more role/mission to point out for craft that do much the same role in today's world that would apply here.

One of the nice things about an SWACS type ship is that it can send information back to a carrier type vessel and if the "mother ship" is listening it can feed that information into its own computer. so the home carrier can get information passivly thus concealing its position from the enemy. this has a great deal of tactical value.

general comments:

as for era wc3 forward would be fine.

2d works just fine

as for how to supply fuel and weapons to your carrier/battle group as the case may be.

A handful of years ago I stumbed across a flight simulator built around this same general idea (except you commanded a squadron rather than playing cag) every few missions you got a shipment of weapons (a small one but a shipment none the less) which gave you a degree of resupply. the same could be done for fuel. i don't think its a good idea to have unlimited fuel and weapons because by limiting them you add a degree of skill and planning to the game.

glad to see other people like this idea too keep up the work.

[Jason_Ryock]

Ha! I completely forgot about passive/active radar systems!

That is definatly true with SWACs and true in WC as well, though to a much smaller extent.

Part of Radar's ability is the ability to detect other radar signals being trained on it or that are operating...in WC I think with a Carrier flying around if the Radar sweeps across it it's going to reflect back enough of a Radar Cross Section anyway.

Hmm, I'll look into this more and get back to you. This thought has much possability, despite being differant then the way it's used presently.

[casperXJ]

wow - thanks, Jason - I hadn't thought of half of that stuff - it'll be a nightmare to program, but I'll try

periodic resupply is a good idea - perhaps you would have to defend a transport convoy to get it

I haven't thought about terrain yet, but planets, nebulae, and asteroid fields should be practical to include

you won't need SO to run it

just as a progress report, I have most of the underlying classes - Gun, Missile, Ship, Fighter, etc. - done, and am working on writing the threads to update things in real time

[Slawter]

If you need playtesters, when it's ready, just ask.

By now, just ask if you need any suggestions.

[Jason_Ryock]

Yes, all of that would be a nightmare to program, wasn't a list for you...so lemme give you a run down of what your game should do:

a) SWAC should extend the carrier radar range, or have it's own radar bubble
b) Should see around planets and black holes and deep scan Asteroids]
c) Should be larger then the standard carrier radar range
d) You should be able to use SWAC to do decoy, just have an option for an SWAC to look just like a carrier battle group to distract enemy units.

That's all you really need to program. The rest is just info about how SWAC could have been better used in WC.

[casperXJ]

how should I do coordinates?

a standard x-right, y-up system
-OR-
WCP system (x-right y-down)

if there's another coordinate system from another WC game, please suggest it

[GeeBot]

Hrm, I didn't know that WCP's system had Y down. I'd go with the X-right, Y-up system, but that's just my mathematical background talking. I also like X up, Y right, since I often think in terms of up being the far side, and that being where the enemy is, I like the X coordinate to be in that direction. In any case, though, I don't know if your game should really have people dealing with punching in numerical coordinates, so it's probably best to go whatever's easiest to implement for you.

I think it's really debatable if the WC SWACS have superior radar range. The main reason why airborne radar has such superior range in wet navies is because they're airborne. A carrier-based radar has a range of hundreds or even thousands of kilometers, but because of the horizon, in practice it's limited to the short end of that range (and even worse for sea-skimming targets). There's probably no debating that you could theoretically mount a superior radar system on a ship-based platform, but the practical benefits wouldn't be there. I'm not sure of the capabilities of the AEGIS radars, but since I'm pretty sure the Hawkeyes at least use mechanical scan, I'm guessing the electronically scanned phased array radars on AEGIS ships have superior performance, at least in that department.

Now, take that into space, where the line of sight is essentially unlimited. I think one of the reasons why we don't see the SWACS used a lot is because a carrier can effectively mount a superior radar system in space, as opposed to the planetary situation. While SWACS would be effective when lines of sight are blocked by celestial bodies, this is arguably a niche role, since as far as I'm aware, almost all the combat in the WC games takes place well away from planets.

This makes sense, since in space you probably want to keep the combat a good distance away from the planets, which is presumably the objective, especially since jump points are much more defendable. The cases of planetary combat we know about (WC3/WC4) have involved isolated fighters dispatched on missions; perhaps this is evidence for planetary defenses that would make an approach by carrier suicidal. Some of the novels bring things in a little closer, but remember what happened when the Kilrathi drew in bombardment range of Earth in Fleet Action--presumably, it's the goal of space fleets to keep the enemy fairly far out.

That said, I do think SWACS have their uses, but I don't think they're as much of an automatic advantage as they are in wet navies. I think, robbed of the range advantage, they're definitely more for helping to coordinate detached duties at long distances from the carrier. This still help appreciably extend the carrier's radar range (even if their individual radar range is less), and it's also useful in cases where active carrier radar would be a very bad idea. There have been a number of situations when carriers have been hiding in nebulas or what-not where SWACS would have been helpful; the Black Lance did use a number of craft with SWACS-style capabilities.

On the other hand, assuming SWACS have significant capabilities over fighters, to the point of carrying no armament and being somewhat fragile, you can understand the reluctance of Confed's tacticians to unnecessarily expose them. I also think, as a gameplay matter, it'd be kind a stupid to have an SWACS parked next to your carrier all the time (as a routine matter to extend the radar range); rather than making the SWACS more useful, the longer range means it's too valuable to risk on independent actions.

I don't want to get in a big debate with the SWACS fanboys over whether or not they're a good idea; I just want to point out that just because something works well in today's navy doesn't mean it necessarily translates into space (my main quibble here is the range thing). I also tend to separate the idea of electronic warfare birds from the early warning birds. There's really no good reason why they should be one and the same, since the equipment isn't 100% complementary. I agree completely that electronic warfare is a fun element (although perhaps a bit much to integrate into a first pass at such a game).

[Jason_Ryock]

I just threw the EW bit in there because it has potential for use with the SWACs.

It is true that the WAC craft may not have the same uses in WC as they do in the Navy, for differant reasons, but I think if ConFed examined the possabilites of the WAC craft it could in fact become more useful.

For example, the Radar mounted on a Capital Ship (Let's say a Midway-Class carrier) isn't going to be there simply to be a radar, it's a part of a carrier. The Original WAC craft used by Confed was a Corvette outfitted specfically to hold Spaceborne Radar. I think the design differance between giving the Midway a way to see Space around it and giving a Corvette a way to extend Radar range means that the distance of radar coverage by a WAC Corvette would be greater.

to give you a more direct comparison:
Presently in the United States Navy & Air Force there are Three types of Craft we're discussing:

Carrier Radar
Range: 60 Nautical miles

Carrier WAC Craft
Range: 300 NM

Air Force WAC Craft
Range: 173.795248

(Apologies for the raw conversion data)

The Carrier WAC Craft has a relativly larger range then the Air Force WAC craft and the Carrier itself. This obviously shows the design differances built into the ships. It makes lots and lots of Sense to put the biggest baddest bestest radar you've got into the primary ship in the fleet, that ship ISN'T designed to be a floating radar platform, its a combat vessel. And as such, size and constraints (as well as placement) are limited by the designers and planners of the vessel.

Despite the cost, I think it's alot more cost effective to stick the radar in a smaller ship like an SWACs craft, and give it four of those instead of four fighters, rather then stick the best radar you have in the carrier.

Logistically, if you lose on SWACs craft, you still have radar capabilites, possibly better then that of the carrier, and you can lose two more craft and still have radar capabilities.

In Propechy we've seen the introduction of the HARM Missile (Which is poorly named, HARM is supposed to be ANTI-Radiation, and is supposed to home on Radar sites on the ground, not turrets) it wouldn't be hard at all to build a missile designed to home in and destroy specifically a Capital ships radar. It would be a brilliant idea. So now you've got a problem, either your radar is heavily Armored and less powerful, tucked away in the middle of the ship and unable to get/send good signals, or incredibly vulnerable.

One more good reason for the SWACs craft.

By the way, if you look at my post it says right at the top that you have to assume that SWACs have good radar, better then that of a carrier, something I think still holds true in WC.

I mean, look at the models for the Concordia and Lexington and the Midway...where on there do you see Radar arrays sticking out scanning space? Maybe they are differant and better so that they can be contained inside of a ships hull, but I doubt you'll get better reception in there then with a huge triangular radar out exposed and scanning. My personal take on that is that the Radar arrays they WERE using were to vulnerable, so they stick them inside the ship to proctec them.

Again, this is an area about WC we don't really know much about, so this is pretty wild speculation on my part.

[Jason_Ryock]

We have a name...

SWACs fanboys!

[GeeBot]

Don't forget the SWACs fangirls. Wherever they are.

Anyway, just because you have to assume that SWACS have superior radar, doesn't mean it's true. I already mentioned that carrier radars are limited in range because of LoS issues with the horizon... at sea level, the range isn't going to be more than about 20 nm, maybe slightly more with over-the-horizon capability. There's no practical benefit to outfitting a carrier with superior radar; in any case, a carrier's escorts (both airborne and seaborne) can help extend that range considerably.

I would think a big capital ship with a huge power plant would be able to mount a big honkin' radar at a minimal additional cost. It's also fairly obvious that SWACS are not used routinely in the WC games in any sort of close support role to carriers. As for whether radar arrays have to be obvious, if you look at the phased array systems on AEGIS ships, they're not obvious, either: just flat areas covered with hundreds of brick-like transceivers. That makes just about any area of the very-angular Midway an appropriate spot to put a radar. Note that the superstructure extends both well above and well below the hangar "wings" (for lack of a better term). This should eliminate the problem of the "wings" blocking radar coverage from one side. This aspect of the design might then suggest that the Midway does have sophisticated radar. Then there's that big thing sticking out the back; I always thought it looked kinda silly. I think it's supposed to be used by the science team, but this also suggests the possibility that it might be equipped with special sensors used for scientific data collection (I mean, why else is it so freak'n huge?); it might even be a radome of some sort.

The fact of the matter is, the only directly destroyable structures in Prophecy-era phase shielded capital ships are shield emitters and weapon turrets. The weapon turrets need to be on the outside, because you can't seem to beam lethal energy and missiles through phase shields (makes sense). Everything else is protected by the phase shields. There's no reason to think that the radar should be any different; heck, maybe you could incorporate radar into the phase shield generators themselves. Communications can clearly be transmitted through phase shields, but there are no obvious communication arrays, either.

Unfortunately, the game designers didn't seem to give the idea of "blinding" capital ships much thought (even blowing up the bridge doesn't seem to have much effect; I flew a number of missions with the Cerberus's bridge supposedly blown to kingdom come--die, Enoch, die!), so we really don't have any idea whether or not ships mounted sensors at all. I think it's obvious that such ships needed radar, even if just for navigational purposes, so the likely conclusion is that the radar just simply wasn't vulnerable (like, strangely, the hull--the most disappointing part of the WCP/SO engine was the fact that capital ships wouldn't blow apart, no matter how many nukes you dropped on them). The HARM missiles were for use against the weapon turrets (although I think they pretty much sucked at that role; my HARMs always ran into some part of those damned angular alien capships--I kept hoping they'd skim along the surface and hit them from the side, instead of going directly through as much armor plate as possible); I'm thinking that turrets had their own fire control radar (like the Phalanx CIWS), perhaps in case central coordination broke down, or just for terminal guidance.

I don't think the technical feasability of mounting sophisticated radar on cap ships is any obstacle. What we then need to consider is whether it's tactically advisable to put sophisticated radar on capital ships, or use any such installations routinely. The Midway, designed for independent action, would probably integrate sophisticated radar, while maybe older carriers would not (however, I'd think otherwise, since in many cases in the games, we're stuck on carriers operating independently). The Plunketts are one of the few ships that has a rotating radar (as ridiculous as mechanical scan 6 centuries in the future might be), so maybe this indicates that the Plunketts were designed with sophisticated radar (perhaps in line with their long range engagement mission).

The main argument against using active radar on a capital ship is that it puts a big flashing "kick me" sign on the battle group. Thus you'd probably want to keep active broadcasters on the less valuable ships, like destroyers, and most of the time you'd use passive radar; this is, in fact, how it's largely done today, and it would make sense in the future as well. However, I don't think this necessarily indicates that the radar on cap ships would be inferior to an SWACS; given the high value of capital ships, I'd say you'd want to have the best radar available, just for emergencies alone. After all, you can afford to lose any number of SWACS, but if the carrier goes up in smoke, well, you're royally screwed over. And contrawise, there's no point to having 4 SWACS if your carrier goes up, so might as well put all your eggs in one basket.

Now, with all that said, please let me repeat that I am not opposed to SWACS. Even if the radar range on the carrier is 1,000,000 km, an SWACS with a range of 100,000 km is still valuable, because you can fly it out a million klicks and extend the range to 1.1 million km, or patrol an asteroid field looking for hidden craft, or coordinate actions far from the carrier, or whatever. However, I think the high value of the capital craft argues strongly that you'd want to put the best radar feasible on such ships (mainly as a defensive measure, not really offensive), and I think the size of cap ships argue that they'd be inevitably superior to what you could mount on an SWACS. And, as I argued before, it'd be rather lame gameplay-wise to force you to park an SWACS in the center of your battle group, simply because the radar range exceeded that of a carrier (not to mention it'd help to pinpoint your position just as well as putting the same radar on a carrier). Better to focus on the mobility and expendability of SWACS, rather than the superiority of their sensor suite.

So, in conclusion, SWACS are good for offense, but I think their defensive suitability is more limited.

[Jason_Ryock]

I guess we'll agree to disagree...maybe when Caspers game comes out we can test some of these theories, or alter the programming of the game slightly (with his permission) to allow the testing of such theories.

I guess if I was desiging a game like Wing Commander I would design the ships to look like they had radar mounted on them somewhere, part of this I understand as the limits of the Game Engines and the fact that most people just don't care.

I don't think there is enough factual information available to us to really continue this argument, its mostly just theory and speculation anyhow.

As for SWACs fangirls...well I only know of two SWACs fanboys (And I'm one of them)...I don't think very many other people really give a hoot. =P Which is fine, I think SWACs/ELINT/EW is a more elegant and vital part of Air/Space Operations, and I'll stick with that over guns-and-glory combat anyday.

[GeeBot]

Agree to disagree sounds good to me. However, I agree completely that the electronic warfare element is highly important, actually. While I'm not so sure about the WC universe, conclusions I've drawn about what space war in real life would be like clearly indicates that electronic warfare might be the most important element.

If you consider that there's basically nowhere to hide in space, the only way you can gain appreciably advantage is (1) numerical/weapon superiority or (2) stealth. Assuming roughly equal capabilities (thus dispensing with case 1), then space war would basically boil down to a sensor war; basically, submarines in space (whee, insert Wing Commander movie sonar, but-there's-no-sound-in-space, reference here).

Assuming the unrestricted use of nuclear weapons, and the lack of anything like "shields" or truly massive amounts of armor, it's not implausible that space war would amount to 1 shot = 1 kill missile duels, in the absence of any sort of electronic countermeasures. In which case, victory would boil down to who could fake out who the most, before unleashing a coordinated volley of ordinance.

Of course, that would kinda make capship duels and fighters superfluous, so I don't know how much fun that'd be.

[Slawter]

Yup

[Jason_Ryock]

Hehe...I like your signiture Slawter. =P We should do more recruitment. =P (That, by the way is my messed up version of a smiley sticking his tongue out...dare to be differant, ya'll. )

[Sycorax]

I could see SWACs working for traffic control and up to the second recon to allow a capship's radar to focus on more important duties, but remote torpedoes are a bit of a stretch. I would think they'd get shot down easily if fired from so far away that they'd need remote control.

Plus, assuming all sides have some sort of ELINT and SWACs, most fighter jobs would be down to investigating blips and HAVCAP, with no real surprises in combat.

There's no reason that capships couldn't have really powerful detection equipment of their own, but I agree it would probably need a large array or dish. If you look at the good old Imperial Star Destroyers, they've got a big dish right behind the hangars.

[smoore_500]

I think this game sounds good so far.

I've just got a few things I think you should keep in mind.

Firstly, I think the role of a CAG would work so long as the missions were interesting and changing, any rank above CAG might be boring if it's not micro-managed and micro-managing several carriers might be boring itself. And, whether it's story driven or not, allow a bit of freedom. i.e. you would get a basic mission, but would choose whehter to run, hide or fight and, if fight, what to attack.

Also I love you idea of the three phases of a fighter mission. But you should remember to present the player with as many hard choices as possible without right or wrong answers. E.g. Whether you should send an entire squaron on a strike or leave some behind in the hangar to defend aginst an attack; how many of those ships should be fighters and how many should be bombers; how many of those fighters should attack the enemy fighter screen and turrets and how many should sit behind to guard the bombers. Also things like the amount of wings to send to patrol, the more you use the more your prescence will be known, the less you use the less intel you will gather and the more dangerous the mission will be for the pilots that are sent.

I also have an idea for character management. You could have them as just ordinance with names until they reach "ace" or "ace of aces" status, then their chance of survival increases and they begin to become more characters than ordinance.

Anyway, I hope this helps with inspiration.

[Jason_Ryock]

If you referrering to the giant dome thingy sticking out the butt of the Stardestroyer like a pimple...

Official Lucas Film sources have identified that to be the Reactor for the ship, not a radar. If anything, less is known about SW Radar then about WC.

I came up with an interesting theory, GeeBot, if you'd like to hear it. It requires some basic understand of radar first, so lemme get that out of the way.

When you want to detect a flying hunk of metal flying a good distance away from you, you send our a wave of radio energy at the target (sort of like a sonar ping). When that wave hits the target it's affected by: the angle it hits at, the material density, and the speed at which the target (and the radar wave) are both moving. All of these factors contribute to something called the Radar Cross Section, which would be (in simple mans terms for everyone else reading this) the amount of the ship which is detected and reflected back on Radar.

That being said, the best possible position to limit your Radar Cross section to the Radars in WC would be head on (Which is probably why we don't see more Z-axis fighting in the games and such. This limits your radar cross section almost as much as it possibly could. There is one better position, however, that has been overlooked.

When a radar reflects off of a metal object at a 90 degree angle it is reflected almost straight back in full force, minus however much was absorbed in the material. Imagine shining a flashlight straight into a mirror, it appears right back on the opposite wall. Now imagine shining that flashlight at a 60 degree angle to the mirror, where does the radar energy go? It goes down, and out, and away from the "source" of the light.

So by that assumption, if you approached a Carrier/Radar detector so that their radar reflected down at you and hit you at a 60 degree angle you could approach with minimal cross section.

(( This is in affect how Modern Stealth Technology works, by deflecting the energy onto other vectors and away from the target, as well as through the use of Radar absorbing material. For example, if you ever look at a picture of a F-117a Stealth you'll notice that it's covered with triangular angled panals to best deflect radar energy away. ))

All that being said, let's Imagine (look at the System from the side, directly along the X axis) that A is the Task Force being Attacked, B is the Attacking Force, and C is the SWACs craft patroling for the A Task Force. Presumably, the system behind the ships are clear, as they are making a transit across the system to another jump point.


........................................ ............C-SWACs

A-Carrier





....................................B-Approaching Task Force




In this kind of a situation, though the radar range of the SWACs craft is greater then that of the Carrier it would bein a better position to track and identify the incoming Task Force. Moden WAC craft call this "look down" radar, for obvious reasons. The SWACs, above and forward (or even just forward) has a better draw on the Radar Cross section of the approaching task force.

This assumes, obviously that WC Radar has some sort of 3D scan ability (which is must, obviously, since they're fighting in a 3D enviornment) and that is uses much the same methods of detection as modern radar (Again, I don't think this is to much of a stretch.

If both cases are true a forward "look down" radar would be incredibly useful.

In the same case as detailed above let's imagine for a moment that group B is approaching the Task Force head on (again in an attempt to minimize their radar signiture) and a few thousand klicks in front of them is a large ConFed Transport. The carrier in question picks up the Confed Transport...but because the transport, carrier, and attacking ships are all on the same plane, the Transport blocks the radar signiture for the other ships. Imagine also that instead of coming in behind a confed Transport they are coming in single file, and in front is say, a single destroyer. Confed picks up and details a single destroyer, sends up a small fighter escort and bomber group to destroy it, and a carrier and a whole wing of fighters pounce on the group that comes out to wipe out the presumed threat.

in both of these situations a Forward (or side, or rearward) "look down" or even "look up" Radar would be in a better position to detect these threats.

The argument has been made, rightfully, that SWACs craft would be expensive [American WAC Craft cost somewhere from 50 mil (Navy) to 170 Mil (Air Force) a piece
with the edge going to the Navy Version for greater range coverage (But smaller crew and monitoring gear]. This is true, probably to expensive to rish in open combat or dangreous situations. However, send and SWACs up with a group of say, four fighters and send it around on a patrol. It can cover the same distance as one or more groups of fighters in at least half the range/time.

(Surely your not going to argue that fighter craft have better radar then SWACs).

You've now protected the SWACs, in addition you've given the fighter early warning abilites about incoming attacks. Long before the fighters could ever reach the SWACs the SWACs would detect them (when normal fighters wouldn't).

By the way, just an interesting Side note, if Carrier/Craft radar is so good in WC, why do you spend so much time patroling space in WC? Even in "friendly" space or "non hostile" areas you always encounter something (I agree this is the design of the game, but I think it only suggest that Carrier Radar is lacking and limited in it's ability to detect forces in Space).

Also, anyone got an theories on what other kinds of detection methods (namely Passive) that Confed might use to pick up enemies? I had two, Heat Detection and Communications Detection. Heat and communication would be limited to speed of light, roughly, with the exception of Burst Transmission? I think?

Just dawned on me that Normal Radar like we're talking about is only useful at speed of light, which would mean only for close in support and uses. That doesn't matter to much on Earth, but when your trying to detect forces halfway cross the solar system it comes into play big time, I think almost necessitating the use of a SWACs craft, which can fly out and detect forces and radio back. Unless they figured out a way to speed up radar waves in the future. =P

I'd like to know what GeeBot and Slaweter thing about this, when they read it.

[Slawter]

Really good.

I can't think of anything to add to it, but i'll try to find something.

[Jason_Ryock]

What other ideas about WC Sensors though?

[GeeBot]

Originally Posted by Smoore_500

Firstly, I think the role of a CAG would work so long as the missions were interesting and changing, any rank above CAG might be boring if it's not micro-managed and micro-managing several carriers might be boring itself.

I think the game should be turn-based, in which case micromanagement wouldn't really be an issue unless you had to manage like, 100 carriers with 100 fighters and 10 escorts each... that'd be a bit much. I think turn-based will be a requirement, since real-time would require either that you're mentally capable of controlling multiple fighters at once, or having each fighter programmed with some basic AI routines (which are hard to get right).

As for the Star Wars Star Destroyer radar, some people think those geodesic domes on the top are sensors, not shield generators as portrayed in the X-Wing games (and I don't know where else, I'm not big on Star Wars).

Incidentally, about the stealth question: there's a reason why the stealth bomber (B-2) has such a freaking flat bottom. You'd think, whoa, major radar reflector, right? However, as it turns out, it's exactly the idea of reflecting the radar somewhere else. This doesn't work so well with bistatic radar (where the transmitter and receiver are separated--imagine shining a flashlight at a mirror at an angle, but looking from a position across from the flashlight). The idea with the F-117A's panels is to scatter the radar beams more widely; the Comanche, Raptor, and JSF are designed using more advanced versions of the software used to design the F-117As; basically, you get more aerodynamic surfaces than with the old software, which was only capable of the old, angular design.

As a side note, it's physically impossible to create an object that won't reflect radar strongly from every direction (RCS of 0). The problem is that between any two angles, you have every other possible angle... so between, say, a panel facing at 90 degrees and -90 degrees, you have a joint which has some small portion pointing straight back at the receiver (that's why stealth aircraft have large flat areas, and as few edges as possible). There's nothing special about a 60 degree angle, BTW: the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. An 80 degree angle would do about as well.

The Confederation probably has some sort of stealth system, be it active or passive. Cloaks are mentioned as a possibility, although they're apparently not effective against the Nephilim, and even in WC4 Confed has developed anti-cloak systems. The Hades-class cruisers (like the Cerberus) are rumored to have some sort of exotic jamming system, possibly a capital ship cloak (I know I certainly saw the Cerberus fade away on me a number of times in WCSO, but I think that was a bug in the engine ).

As for Z-axis fighting, actually there's a lot more of it in Wing Commander than, say, Star Trek. Waypoints are positioned in all sorts of positions relative to the XY plane given in the WCP radar map, for example.

The problem with sending an SWACS across the solar system is that the radio uses light speed communication as well (radar uses radio waves, hence the name). Even if there were an FTL communication system (not that there's ever any evidence for one), it's likely it could also be exploited for long range sensors. So you don't get any advantage in terms of speed; the major effect of long range radar is extended propagation delays, but you can certainly compensate for that for early warning purposes.

For example: if the enemy task force is approaching at 0.10c (well above the tactical speeds of WC ships, due to the drag of the fuel scoops), and your radar range is 900,000 km, or 3 light seconds, you'd still get a radar return before the enemy task force had closed from 900,000 km to 810,000 km (assuming active radar is already on, or using passive detection). Assuming their detection range is similar, they wouldn't even realize they were closing on you until the same instant you realize they're closing on you. Since if they're closing on you at 0.10c, you're closing on them at 0.10c, there's not really a reaction time advantage for either side, besides general readiness conditions. It's likely detection ranges would be a lot longer than 900,000 km, but I thought this would be a reasonable example to illustrate the main point: basically, if you're in range to hurt each other, the light speed delay isn't a major factor. Tactically, the delay is a bigger obstacle to coordinating between friendly fleets (due to the communication delay): widely separated fleets wouldn't be able to react very quickly to changes in the combat situation.

The reason why you patrol is for the same reason why you don't just park an SWACS next to the carrier (even assuming the SWACS had better radar), instead of sending out patrols: the sensor range, no matter how large, is finite, while space is infinite (not to mention debris like asteroid fields which disrupt LoS). Incidentally, at least in WCP, fighters are sent less often on patrols as on strike missions to blow up capships or escort other craft. To the contrary, we might deduce from the fact that the Midway CAP basically just hovers around the carrier that the carrier sensor range is extremely long, and it's better to keep the fighters in close, to be easily vectored to any destination, than keep them out in an extended bubble to try and extend the sensor range.

Communication detection is properly called electronic intelligence (ELINT), and there are a number of examples in WCP of Confed tapping into alien communications (although the science division seems to have trouble decoding them); ditto in the older game with the Kilrathi. Infrared (heat) detection falls in with optical systems, like telescopes. The main problem with optical systems is (1) as with any passive system, the target may not be radiating in the given band, (2) dust can obscure optical bands (not so much infrared), and (3) they tend to be more complicated and less reliably. Some of the advantages of optical are higher resolution (due to the shorter wavelength), and smaller detection equipment. An active variation on passive electro-optical sensors would be lidar, but it's doubtful you'd want to use lidar for anything except fire control.

However, that said, modern sensor systems do use a wide variety of sensor systems, integrated to get the best possible picture (although radar is the main standby, since it's all weather and highly refined). There's no real reason why Confed couldn't use a wide variety of sensor systems, including exotic things like tachyons or something. However, as far as we know, the physics of the situation wouldn't be much different from radar, and the rule of the inverse square law. From a tactical stand point, it really doesn't matter how you collect your signals.

I would think look-up would be more useful than look-down, assuming the horizon weren't a problem... the small matter of sea/ground clutter is a significant problem. During the Falklands War, the British were taken by surprise by a pair of Argentinian fighters flying about 30 m above the waves, leading to the loss of the HMS Sheffield.

Still, having separated sensor platforms is a definite advantage, since you can use triangulation to get position fixes with only passive systems (you can do so with systems on the same ship, of course, but the longest baseline helps). Separation also helps improve the general accuracy of sensor fixes. However, separation doesn't actually do anything for early warning applications, which I would assume would be the main (defensive) purpose of carrier sensors: if you detect something out there, you detect something out there, and it's time to go to red alert. Also, the farther the contact, the longer the baseline you need for a given technology base. In the end, there probably would be little advantage to separating your fleet elements too widely, due to communication delays (which would affect how quickly you could correlate the sensor returns) and the loss in concentration of firepower.

Incidentally, protecting your SWACS with 4 fighters doesn't do you much good if the enemy comes at you with 8 fighters. Assuming equal capabilities on each side, even a minor numerical advantage would be enough to overcome the defenders. In WCP, the SWACS was used to make a probing sweep of a large volume of space; it'd probably be a little foolhardy to send it out routinely with every attack.

As for the inferiority of fighter radars, I imagine with improvements in technology fighters might have some pretty good sensors--in fact, fighter sensors are one of the few things we do know anything about, since in the games we're equipped with one. The basic point, though, is that you don't need to have the best sensors to carry out an attack (especially when you have backup at a safe distance away), just enough to get your ordinance on target. Which, when you get right down to it, is the ultimate mission of the fleet: to deliver steel on target.

Have you considered strike warfare missions as part of the game. it might be fun to send your wing on a strike mission against several strategic targets across a planet or system. The missions don't have to just be recon, and anti-ship operations.

[Jason_Ryock]

First of all, there is evidence of faster then light transmissions in WC, they're called burst transmission, and they have to travel faster then light, because we see them arriving all across the WC "Universe" in a matter of minutes rather then a matter of a few thousand years.

That being said, if you were going to deploy a WAC craft you would obviously want it equipped with a burst transmitter for tranmission back to the carriers (which also carry burst transmitters/receivers, by the way).

The look down/look up aspect of the radar was mentioned as possible uses in space to get a better look at an incoming or outgoing force.

I haven't played Prophecy, not out of any will not to but simply because Wing Commander to me will always be about fighting the Kilrathi.

Just as you said in one of your earlier posts, war in space comes down a sensor war, "submarines in space" I think you called it.

THAT being said, early detecting and warning holds the key to victory in any fleet action. If you know where the other side is, or where they are going to be you have the avantage.

This is not possible without and SWACs. Exactly as you said in your above post with radar limited to speed of light the only ranges for Radar to be of any use are ranges where each fleet is mutually detecting the other. That assumes they found each other and manuvered towards each other in the first place, and didn't just blunder into each other through sheer chance. And with space being as infinite as it is, blundering into an enemy task force by "sheer chance" is pretty rare unless your at a jump point, and the opposing task force isn't trying to hide.

But let's say you arrive in a system and you don't know what's there, or best case, you know whats there, but not where it is right now. How do you find it? Run your carrier in a search grid all over the whole map because it has the best possible radar? I don't think so. Launch a WAC craft? You seem to think it's to expensive, wouldn't do enough good, and doesn't have the right communications gear.

So instead we leave the carrier to blunde across the system until each fleet detects the other, given them as much time to prepare as you have. Maybe they're faster loading their missiles, maybe they're ships close range quicker, maybe they don't have their fighters scattered across the solar system hunting for your capships because they have WAC craft doing that same job. What it comes down to at that point is these two things:

1) Whose plane crews are faster
2) Whose ships are faster

I'm sure that Captain's have every confidence in their ships and crews, but wouldn't it be better to strike the enemy ship (be it carrier [most likely] or not) without the carrier having that added benefit of first detection?

I draw you attention again to the limits of carrier borne radar. Not only does it travel at the speed of light, but it has a severally limited range because of such a handicap. In a sensor war where early detection is critical it's necessary to detect the enemy first, not at the same time, and to keep your own ships and assets hidden from him long enough to wage war.

I have to get to class, but I'll be back to update when I'm done. I have more to say about the angle and directivity of radar signals.

Lemme say though, I think after reading everything we've said that radar as we know it today is not the same at all as radar in Wing Commander. They must have something better, not because it's the future, but because it's necessary to the kind of operations they are performing.

[Jason_Ryock]

Actual flat size has little to do with a radar cross section. The issue in question is directivity.

When a Radar beam strikes a flat surface at 90 degrees, about 80-90% of it's radar energy is reflected straight back at the target. If we change that angle so that it impacts instead at 80 degrees, 97% of the Radar energy is reflected AWAY from the target. If the radar beam strikes at 60 degrees exactly we see better the 99.9 (I just don't wanna list the decimal places) of the radare nergy reflected away from the radar beam.

This assumes, correctly, that the receiver/transmitter are stored in two differant locations.

This would not be the case with the SWACs. But now let's take into account another set of circumstances. A carrier and her escorts are charging straight at another carrier and her escorts. The radar beam in question travels out and impacts the front of the ship at 90 degrees and returns straight back toward the target. What if, instead of charging straight in at the carrier, you altered your approach so that the beam strike at 60 degrees, and 99.9% of the radar energy was reflected away from the receiver? You've just become more stealthy and bought yourself a few more minutes to close with the enemy, five more minutes for you to prepare and five less minutes for the enemy to prepare.

Granted that carriers are NOT stealthy craft to begin with, but this can apply to fighters and bombers as well, and directivity has the most affect on Radar Cross sections.

That's all I have to say, for now.