Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Chat => Topic started by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on July 09, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
-
I spent the better part of today firing training missiles at PD Gauss Turrets to see how they fared. It would have gone much faster if there was method to my madness, but such is life.
Setup
Sol start, one system, no NPRs. Planet motion is off. No officers were assigned to any ship.
Blue Team: Hal is defending from Earth orbit with Eagle providing sensors.
Red Team: Tester is attacking from Luna orbit using own sensors. Trainer is in Earth orbit.
Blue Team
AWACS Eagle class - 700 tons 25 Crew 235 BP TCS 14 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-7 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control 1 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 0% IFR: 0% Maintenance Capacity 210 MSP
Spare Berths 3
Active Search Sensor MR23-R1 (1) GPS 210 Range 23.1m km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
TGT Hal class - 48600 tons 2009 Crew 6573.5 BP TCS 972 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-118 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control 20 PPV 830.2
Annual Failure Rate: 0% IFR: 0% Maintenance Capacity 1691 MSP
Spare Berths 21
Quad R6/C3 Meson Cannon Turret (10x4) Range 60,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 12-12 RM 6 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Twin R6/C3 Meson Cannon Turret (10x2) Range 60,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 6-6 RM 6 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Single R6/C3 Meson Cannon Turret (10x1) Range 60,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 3-3 RM 6 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Single Gauss Cannon R4-100 Turret (10x4) Range 40,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 4 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Twin Gauss Cannon R4-100 Turret (10x8) Range 40,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 4 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quad Gauss Cannon R4-8 Turret (10x16) Range 40,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 4 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Twin Gauss Cannon R4-8 Turret (10x8) Range 40,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 4 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Single Gauss Cannon R4-8 Turret (10x4) Range 40,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 4 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quad Gauss Cannon R4-100 Turret (10x16) Range 40,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 4 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S03 96-10000 (1) Max Range: 192,000 km TS: 10000 km/s 95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Fire Control S00.1 8-2500 (1) Max Range: 16,000 km TS: 2500 km/s 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reactor 108 (2) Total Power Output 216 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposesMeson Cannon testing was abandoned after the second set as the chance to hit matched the Gauss Cannon R4-100. The first fire control was set to FDF-4 for all tests. The second fire control was a mistake and was never used.
Red Team
DMM Tester class - 17,550 tons 719 Crew 2825 BP TCS 351 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-60 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 10 PPV 200
Maint Life 6.02 Years MSP 1006 AFR 246% IFR 3.4% 1YR 48 5YR 714 Max Repair 105 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 2
Magazine 2000
Size 1/5s Missile Launcher (200) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 5
Missile Fire Control FC61-R20 (1) Range 62.0m km Resolution 20
DMM5k (2000) Speed: 5,000 km/s End: 8.2d Range: 3563.2m km WH: 0 Size: 1 TH: 16/10/5
Active Search Sensor MR51-R20 (1) GPS 2100 Range 51.7m km Resolution 20
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposesTester could have used 160 launchers as that is the limit of the Quad Gauss turrets, but 2000 missile magazines were easier to change load-outs. All missiles are part of the same series to ease switching between them. 5k km/s, 10k km/s, and 20k km/s training missiles were used with the only difference between them being the engine multiplier.
ASB Trainer class - 225,000 tons 11509 Crew 23697.5 BP TCS 4500 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-329 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 100 PPV 3000
Maint Life 1.91 Years MSP 6583 AFR 4050% IFR 56.2% 1YR 2329 5YR 34938 Max Repair 225 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 0
R1.5/C3 High Power Microwave (1000) Range 15,000km TS: 4000 km/s Power 3-3 RM 1.5 ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 128-2000 (1) Max Range: 256,000 km TS: 2000 km/s 96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Reactor 75 (40) Total Power Output 3000 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This version never fired a full 1k volley but did use over 600 guns to raise Hal's grade from 60% to 100% in one shot. This took around 90 real-time seconds. The original 10k gun version proved to be overkill and set a personal record for longest 5s increment at 25 minutes.
Testing
Four sets of 18 rounds each. Trainer was used to raise Hal's grade between sets. 0%, 30%, 60%, and 100% grade bonuses were tested. Only one type of turret and only one type of missile were used in each round. Missiles were fired in 200 missile salvos with successful shoot-downs counted. Chance to hit was calculated against each weapon's maximum breadth rather than actual salvo size with singe mounts rated against 40, double mounts against 80, and quad mounts against 160 hits per salvo.
Results
In the first set the Quad R4-8 Turret ranked noticeably higher against the 20k missiles than expected. This was the only outlier. Hit rates were otherwise consistent with in-game reported weapon accuracy.
No significant accuracy difference between single, dual, and quad turrets.
No significant accuracy difference against 5k and 10k missiles, but 20k missiles were about twice as hard to hit.
Grade bonus acted as a flat multiplier with 100% grade bonus doubling accuracy.
All R4-100 Turrets exceeded 100% accuracy against 5k and 10k missiles at 30% grade bonus and higher. Not a single miss occurred under these conditions.
To Do
Calculate hits/tonne for each weapon.
Redo R4-8 vs 10k using 100 salvos.
Redo R4-100 with a lower accuracy fire control.
Test whether commander bonus is added or multiplied.
Attached
Series.txt - raw hit counts for each salvo.
Series.csv - % accuracy for each round.
-
Hunh. Microwave damage improves crew grade? That is news. That is a much faster way of cheesing grade with no chance of accidentally destroying your ships.
Thanks for testing!
-
Why wouldn't it?
Ship's getting fired upon, doesn't really matter what weapon.
-
It does work, but it can be a bit fussy. The target ship must have a sensor or fire control to damage or you get database errors and the amount of grade points per hit varies a lot from one ship to another. My initial practice target received 0.15 GP per hit, which is why I built that 10000 gun monster, but the target I used for this experiment received 9.72 GP per hit.
I'm also not entirely sure why this got moved to Chat, I was certain it belonged in Mechanics. ???
-
I don't quite understand the results. Are you saying that you wanted to verify that the in-game text regarding accuracy and mechanics were actually accurate?
-
To be fair, in most games those stats are outright lies with no bearing on reality.
-
Results
In the first set the Quad R4-8 Turret ranked noticeably higher against the 20k missiles than expected. This was the only outlier. Hit rates were otherwise consistent with in-game reported weapon accuracy.
No significant accuracy difference between single, dual, and quad turrets.
No significant accuracy difference against 5k and 10k missiles, but 20k missiles were about twice as hard to hit.
Grade bonus acted as a flat multiplier with 100% grade bonus doubling accuracy.
All R4-100 Turrets exceeded 100% accuracy against 5k and 10k missiles at 30% grade bonus and higher. Not a single miss occurred under these conditions.
I would have expected the dual and quad turrets to have improved accuracy over the single turret, why pay for the extra size if no increased accuracy?
The 5K and 10K missiles had the same accuracy because the turret tracking speed was 10K, the speed accuracy penalty for 20k missiles would be roughly half as was demonstrated.
Grade bonus operated as expected.
-
I'm also not entirely sure why this got moved to Chat, I was certain it belonged in Mechanics. ???
It might be a little out-dated (since VB Aurora is over and things have moved to C#), but we try to keep Mechanics free for Steve to post rules changes. In the past, there would be a snowball effect - someone would post something in mechanics, then new users would see it and start posting stuff that should go in The Academy into it, and then we'd get a thread explosion and Steve's rules posts would rapidly be pushed deep into the back pages and diluted. The thing that kicked me over the edge for this one (I was on the edge) was your statement "if there was method to my madness" - it wasn't clear to me what the post was trying to accomplish (confirm known rules, figure out what the rules are - exactly the question Garfunkel asked) so I figured Chat was a good place to work it out in discussion.
John
-
I'm also not entirely sure why this got moved to Chat, I was certain it belonged in Mechanics. ???
It might be a little out-dated (since VB Aurora is over and things have moved to C#), but we try to keep Mechanics free for Steve to post rules changes. In the past, there would be a snowball effect - someone would post something in mechanics, then new users would see it and start posting stuff that should go in The Academy into it, and then we'd get a thread explosion and Steve's rules posts would rapidly be pushed deep into the back pages and diluted. The thing that kicked me over the edge for this one (I was on the edge) was your statement "if there was method to my madness" - it wasn't clear to me what the post was trying to accomplish (confirm known rules, figure out what the rules are - exactly the question Garfunkel asked) so I figured Chat was a good place to work it out in discussion.
John
Fair enough, and thank you for telling me why. I will try to keep that in mind in future. :)
I don't quite understand the results. Are you saying that you wanted to verify that the in-game text regarding accuracy and mechanics were actually accurate?
The primary purpose of this exercise was to confirm things I've read elsewhere about Gauss Cannons and turrets, and yes to confirm that the game's stated figures are accurate. I don't know if the rules have changed in the mean time or if those posts were just wrong, but this Steve fellow has proven surprisingly reliable. ;D
I would have expected the dual and quad turrets to have improved accuracy over the single turret, why pay for the extra size if no increased accuracy?
The 5K and 10K missiles had the same accuracy because the turret tracking speed was 10K, the speed accuracy penalty for 20k missiles would be roughly half as was demonstrated.
Grade bonus operated as expected.
A quad turret is smaller than four single turrets, with savings varying depending on the weapon, turret speed, and armour. With large guns like the Gauss-100 it is only a few percent, but a quad Gauss-8 is a bit more than twice the size of a single.
Missile performance and grade were as expected as you say, but I wanted to be sure.
Strictly speaking, with a high enough crew grade the Gauss-8 will dominate the Gauss-100 because accuracy above 100% is wasted and missiles have a hard maximum speed, but I still need to calculate hits/tonne and verify how commander bonuses work to find the cutoff points.
-
It is also going to be interesting to see how things work in C# Aurora when the Max time tracking bonus will be fixed and actually working. This might then mean that you will want your Gauss turrets to be less than full size to take advantage of that bonus as much as possible.
In the current version I generally use 85% Gauss because they are just slightly more effective per weight and can in some rare occasion make crew grade go above the 100% limit and thus make the guns more than 85% accurate.
-
It is also going to be interesting to see how things work in C# Aurora when the Max time tracking bonus will be fixed and actually working. This might then mean that you will want your Gauss turrets to be less than full size to take advantage of that bonus as much as possible.
In the current version I generally use 85% Gauss because they are just slightly more effective per weight and can in some rare occasion make crew grade go above the 100% limit and thus make the guns more than 85% accurate.
The Crew Grade bonus will exceed 100% if a ship has more than 12100 grade points. During testing I was able to achieve over 300% Crew Grade bonus with 10k microwave hits, but that was prohibitively expensive. Effective accuracy, after all bonuses and penalties are assessed, cannot exceed 100% because no weapon can perform better than a 100% hit rate. This cap can tip the balance in favour of smaller weapons if sufficient multipliers can be applied, but it is not the only factor. The ultimate goal of this exercise was to determine if and when smaller Gauss Cannons are worth using. I don't have enough test data to model this correctly yet so I can neither confirm nor deny your assertion, but it is possible.
I was not aware that the tracking bonus is broken, so we can add that to my To Do list. *sigh*
-
It is also going to be interesting to see how things work in C# Aurora when the Max time tracking bonus will be fixed and actually working. This might then mean that you will want your Gauss turrets to be less than full size to take advantage of that bonus as much as possible.
In the current version I generally use 85% Gauss because they are just slightly more effective per weight and can in some rare occasion make crew grade go above the 100% limit and thus make the guns more than 85% accurate.
The Crew Grade bonus will exceed 100% if a ship has more than 12100 grade points. During testing I was able to achieve over 300% Crew Grade bonus with 10k microwave hits, but that was prohibitively expensive. Effective accuracy, after all bonuses and penalties are assessed, cannot exceed 100% because no weapon can perform better than a 100% hit rate. This cap can tip the balance in favour of smaller weapons if sufficient multipliers can be applied, but it is not the only factor. The ultimate goal of this exercise was to determine if and when smaller Gauss Cannons are worth using. I don't have enough test data to model this correctly yet so I can neither confirm nor deny your assertion, but it is possible.
I was not aware that the tracking bonus is broken, so we can add that to my To Do list. *sigh*
I know.. which was my point that crew grade can bring an 85% miniaturised gun to better performance than a 100% one because of crew grade.
Although... 300% crew grade will practically not happen in a game unless you cheat the system which I would never do, I find it rarely go above around 150% in practice usually (if I remember correctly).
-
It seems that my reading comprehension isn't as good as I thought it was. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
More testing
This test was 100 volleys of 100 equal speed missiles against 5xQuad 5ROF turrets. Results are scaled to hits/tonne, with lines showing best, worst, and most common single volleys. Additional runs were done for the lower accuracy weapons so each weapon had at least 4000 hits total.
The -10's performed noticeably better than the rest, averaging 6% above median. The -33's did the worst at 4% below. The -8's were the only gun type to completely miss a salvo, while the -100's best was 99/100.
Retesting the -10's against 2x speed missiles had slightly higher numbers than expected again. I suspect the discrepancy is due to rounding when calculating low accuracy scores, but lack the patience to properly test it.
The commander bonus I read about that supposedly gives -8's an edge doesn't seem to exist. A change or misinterpretation of crew grade bonuses is suspected.
The missile tracking bonus does not appear to affect FDF or FDF(self) modes. Testing this will require a slightly different setup.
Turrets
Turret size scales linearly with weapon size and count with a few exceptions:
-Combined weapon size is rounded towards even when calculating gear size. This can only happen with Gauss Cannons smaller than 1HS and causes some weirdness.
-There are gear discounts for twin (0.5%), triple (0.75%), and quad (1%) mounts.
-The minimum turret size including gear is 1HS.
Armour cost per layer is constant for a given turret size. Each layer provides 1 HTK per gun.
Racial armour tech reduces final armour size but does not affect cost.
Armour does not cost additional RP, just Neutronium.
In the AMM role, ROF 1 Gauss turrets are inferior to other turret weapons because the reactor doesn't need gear. ROF 2 and above are always superior regardless of reactor tech.
Super Pea-shooter
A cute little exploit is that due to rounding Single-8's don't pay for gear. They are always 1 HS without armour.
This is the cheapest possible turret in Aurora.
10 RP Gauss Cannon R1-8
10 RP Single Gauss Cannon R1-8 Turret
Single Gauss Cannon R1-8 Turret (1x1) Range 10,000km TS: 300000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 1 ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 HS, 0 HTK
1x Vendarite eachThe difficulty, of course, is getting a matching fire control. ;)
How difficult do you ask? Paired with a speed x16 FC (x4/FTR) a Quad-100 gets ROF hits/14.64 HS. This turret gets ROF hits/12.5 HS and is small enough to fit on a fighter. It still loses to fixed mounts if your fighter can go that fast, but it might be a consideration for slower units.
One layer of armour gives it 1 HTK but increases the size to 1.97 HS and adds 5 Neutronium to the cost. Bonded Superdense Armour reduces this to 1.16 HS, again putting it ahead of the Quad-100.
-
It is also going to be interesting to see how things work in C# Aurora when the Max time tracking bonus will be fixed and actually working. This might then mean that you will want your Gauss turrets to be less than full size to take advantage of that bonus as much as possible.
In the current version I generally use 85% Gauss because they are just slightly more effective per weight and can in some rare occasion make crew grade go above the 100% limit and thus make the guns more than 85% accurate.
The Crew Grade bonus will exceed 100% if a ship has more than 12100 grade points. During testing I was able to achieve over 300% Crew Grade bonus with 10k microwave hits, but that was prohibitively expensive. Effective accuracy, after all bonuses and penalties are assessed, cannot exceed 100% because no weapon can perform better than a 100% hit rate. This cap can tip the balance in favour of smaller weapons if sufficient multipliers can be applied, but it is not the only factor. The ultimate goal of this exercise was to determine if and when smaller Gauss Cannons are worth using. I don't have enough test data to model this correctly yet so I can neither confirm nor deny your assertion, but it is possible.
I was not aware that the tracking bonus is broken, so we can add that to my To Do list. *sigh*
I know.. which was my point that crew grade can bring an 85% miniaturised gun to better performance than a 100% one because of crew grade.
Although... 300% crew grade will practically not happen in a game unless you cheat the system which I would never do, I find it rarely go above around 150% in practice usually (if I remember correctly).
This is entirely situational because target speed is factored in before the cap. It works if the turret and fire control are as fast or faster than the target, but the 100's still give better PD performance against faster ASMs due to reduced leakage.
Sorry for taking so long to reply.
-
Since the new version of Aurora4x won't have sensor range go up linearly with size, as I understand it, having small screening anti-missile sensors might be more effective than a large single sensor, particularly if you know the threat direction. In general, I like having the point defense and sensors on ships that are an order of magnitude smaller than the heavily armored targets that draw fire.
So you could have a chain of small AMM sensor screen ships that provide very extensive warning and therefore tracking bonus.
-
Yes, especially since tracking bonus is now fixed. I'll personally try that approach in my first C# game.
-
This is entirely situational because target speed is factored in before the cap. It works if the turret and fire control are as fast or faster than the target, but the 100's still give better PD performance against faster ASMs due to reduced leakage.
Sorry for taking so long to reply.
The thing is that missiles are almost always faster than the fire-controls of point defence even at slightly lower missile versus PD tech. So whether you use a 100% or 50% from that perspective might matter somewhat.
Although, in practice it does not really matter if you have a smaller gun or a larger one from a leakage point of view, the difference is so small and depend more on how many fire-controls you have rather than size of the gun so you don't waste shots as much on overkill on salvos. Putting large 100% Gauss in quad turret might be a waste against low salvo numbers, such as from fighters for example. You also presume scenarios that almost never exist such as one salvo of the PD will be able to take out all the missiles on one salvo, this scenario will rarely happen in practice.
Smaller guns also can get some additional effect from having more barrels per turret and are cheaper to research, both the gun and the turrets. Smaller turrets also give you more leeway of designing stuff in the same sense that smaller engines does. I think that turrets will be even more effective in terms of efficiency in C# too. The tracking bonus might also make smaller Gauss way more effective if you can increase the tracking of the weapon closer to the speed of the missiles.
So over all there are many benefits to using smaller Gauss guns that has nothing to do with the minuscule lower efficiency of a 100% or a 50% gun. The combination with ASM being both slightly larger and slower will probably also effect PD choices to some extent.
Also... you should consider that having missiles leak through the PD can also be a strategy in and of itself. So having some missiles leak through and hitting your shields is a good way to know you are being effective with your use of AMM and PD efforts. If the extremely small difference in leakage between a 100% gun and 50% is noticeable then you PD fire are so effective it does not matter anyway.
-
This is entirely situational because target speed is factored in before the cap. It works if the turret and fire control are as fast or faster than the target, but the 100's still give better PD performance against faster ASMs due to reduced leakage.
Sorry for taking so long to reply.
The thing is that missiles are almost always faster than the fire-controls of point defence even at slightly lower missile versus PD tech. So whether you use a 100% or 50% from that perspective might matter somewhat.
Although, in practice it does not really matter if you have a smaller gun or a larger one from a leakage point of view, the difference is so small and depend more on how many fire-controls you have rather than size of the gun so you don't waste shots as much on overkill on salvos. Putting large 100% Gauss in quad turret might be a waste against low salvo numbers, such as from fighters for example. You also presume scenarios that almost never exist such as one salvo of the PD will be able to take out all the missiles on one salvo, this scenario will rarely happen in practice.
Smaller guns also can get some additional effect from having more barrels per turret and are cheaper to research, both the gun and the turrets. Smaller turrets also give you more leeway of designing stuff in the same sense that smaller engines does. I think that turrets will be even more effective in terms of efficiency in C# too. The tracking bonus might also make smaller Gauss way more effective if you can increase the tracking of the weapon closer to the speed of the missiles.
So over all there are many benefits to using smaller Gauss guns that has nothing to do with the minuscule lower efficiency of a 100% or a 50% gun. The combination with ASM being both slightly larger and slower will probably also effect PD choices to some extent.
Also... you should consider that having missiles leak through the PD can also be a strategy in and of itself. So having some missiles leak through and hitting your shields is a good way to know you are being effective with your use of AMM and PD efforts. If the extremely small difference in leakage between a 100% gun and 50% is noticeable then you PD fire are so effective it does not matter anyway.
I am factoring per fire control so fire control count is irrelevant.
Two shots at 50% cth has the same average hit rate as one shot at 100%. Against one incoming missile the single will kill it every time while the twins will both miss it 1/4 of the time. Against two incoming missiles the single will kill one and miss one every time while the double will kill both 1/4 of the time, one 1/2 of the time, and will miss both 1/4 of the time. In both cases the twin has a 25% chance of missing completely and a 6.25% of doing it twice in a row. In the two missile case that means more than doubling the minimum shield requirements, while in the single missile case it means needing shields at all. This is not a 'minuscule' loss of efficiency.
If that was all there was to it there would be little point in ever fielding the smaller cannons, but cth modifiers exist and must be taken into account. As I have not yet tested the Fighter Combat Bonus, I will focus on capital ship defence. Crew grade improves cth without affecting tonnage, and better than 100% effective cth is wasted. Grade is subject to a training cap at 35% so anything more requires taking combat damage. All other modifiers are penalties.
Taking into account modifiers against a given target, a smaller weapon with an effective 100% cth will always be superior to a larger weapon due to higher hits/tonne, and a weapon with less than 100% cth will always be superior to a smaller weapon due to less leakage. There is a tradeoff between a weapon with a greater than 100% cth and a smaller weapon with less as the smaller weapon will have a higher base average hits/tonne but will also leak.
With a 0% grade bonus and a 95% fire control, a Gauss-100 will not exceed 95% acc against any target and will leak slightly. Smaller weapons will leak more with no benefit.
With a 35% grade bonus and a 95% fire control, a Gauss-67 will have 83% cth against same speed and slower targets, an Gauss-85 will have a 100% cth against targets with a 9% speed advantage, and a Gauss-100 can match a 28% speed advantage. Against anything faster the Gauss-100 will always give the best performance but will still leak.
With a 35% grade and a 74% fire control, a Gauss-100 will have just under 100% cth against same speed and slower targets.
For C# Aurora and assuming the tracking bonus is a multiplier like grade is, a 40% tracking bonus, 35% grade bonus, and 95% fire control, would let a Gauss-100 match a 79% speed advantage, a Gauss-85 match a 52% speed advantage, and a Gauss-67 match a 20% speed advantage.
-
if both weapons are less than 100%, large isn't better because of less _average_ leakage, large is better because of less _uncertainty_ in leakage. 10 shots at 90% can be relied upon to get 7 hits; 20 shots at 45% at the same level of confidence only can be depended upon for 5. also, 1000 shots at .9% generate a ton of annoying log entries, screw that.
disregarding the occasionally obsolete enemy, there is a range of plausible speeds of missiles you might find headed in your way. you want your point defense in the hands of properly trained crew to have exactly 100% chance against a speed near the bottom of that range. that's all. imho, ymmv, dyodd, etc
the quote from charlie beeler way back in 2012 makes it sound like the tracking bonus is a percentage of the _missile speed_, i dunno how he would know, but it matches other allegations i can remember reading. if true, that's going to make all this moot because rail guns will be the only point defense worth using.
if you have shields, you should use them. but it doesn't follow that installing shields is intrinsically a good decision. maybe you, jorgen_cab, are only experiencing the ubiquity of leakers because you are spending resources on passive defenses that would have been sufficient to make your active defenses airtight. im not expressing certainty that such is the case, but the possibility of having reversed cause and effect is clearly present in your argument.
-
I am factoring per fire control so fire control count is irrelevant.
Two shots at 50% cth has the same average hit rate as one shot at 100%. Against one incoming missile the single will kill it every time while the twins will both miss it 1/4 of the time. Against two incoming missiles the single will kill one and miss one every time while the double will kill both 1/4 of the time, one 1/2 of the time, and will miss both 1/4 of the time. In both cases the twin has a 25% chance of missing completely and a 6.25% of doing it twice in a row. In the two missile case that means more than doubling the minimum shield requirements, while in the single missile case it means needing shields at all. This is not a 'minuscule' loss of efficiency.
If that was all there was to it there would be little point in ever fielding the smaller cannons, but cth modifiers exist and must be taken into account. As I have not yet tested the Fighter Combat Bonus, I will focus on capital ship defence. Crew grade improves cth without affecting tonnage, and better than 100% effective cth is wasted. Grade is subject to a training cap at 35% so anything more requires taking combat damage. All other modifiers are penalties.
Taking into account modifiers against a given target, a smaller weapon with an effective 100% cth will always be superior to a larger weapon due to higher hits/tonne, and a weapon with less than 100% cth will always be superior to a smaller weapon due to less leakage. There is a tradeoff between a weapon with a greater than 100% cth and a smaller weapon with less as the smaller weapon will have a higher base average hits/tonne but will also leak.
With a 0% grade bonus and a 95% fire control, a Gauss-100 will not exceed 95% acc against any target and will leak slightly. Smaller weapons will leak more with no benefit.
With a 35% grade bonus and a 95% fire control, a Gauss-67 will have 83% cth against same speed and slower targets, an Gauss-85 will have a 100% cth against targets with a 9% speed advantage, and a Gauss-100 can match a 28% speed advantage. Against anything faster the Gauss-100 will always give the best performance but will still leak.
With a 35% grade and a 74% fire control, a Gauss-100 will have just under 100% cth against same speed and slower targets.
For C# Aurora and assuming the tracking bonus is a multiplier like grade is, a 40% tracking bonus, 35% grade bonus, and 95% fire control, would let a Gauss-100 match a 79% speed advantage, a Gauss-85 match a 52% speed advantage, and a Gauss-67 match a 20% speed advantage.
I know and understand the math just fine... the problem is that you assume that salvo size and number of shot will be exact... it almost never will be. One fire control only shoot at one salvo. If you destroy all missiles in the salvo any additional shots is wasted.
Not talking about fire-controls in this equation is also a bit misleading as it is very important. If you only have five fire-controls and seven incoming salvos then two of them will not be engaged at all no matter how many guns you have. Fire-controls are also allot more expensive than the guns (in general) and also compete with sensor costs on other ships as well.
So, lets say you shoot 8 shots at 100% against an 10 missile salvos you will need more fire-controls to finish them of than if you have 16 shots at 50% based on that you will waste less shots and quite often you will kill a single salvo in one shot... far more often than you will need three salvos to finish of all the missiles. If you fire at missile salvos less than 8 you will get the occasional leaking missile but in those instances the leak are generally so small it is insignificant anyway.
So... the problem is that is all depends and in practice using 100% will not always produce the best result. That is almost only true if the missile salvo you shoot against are equally dividable with the shot made at 100% (or smaller). If you need three salvos from PD to kill incoming salvos the leaking difference become extremely small.
Designing PD to shoot down incoming salvos with one fire-control per salvo is really difficult because missile salvos can vary allot in size. Depending on the ship who launches them and the intensity of AMM used against them. This means you often will need more fire-controls than often is required for a single salvo or you can be overwhelmed by really small missile salvos, such as from fighters for example.
If you want to be effective you will expect leaking missiles anyway otherwise you need to invest quite extensively in very expensive PD fire-controls. Fire controls are more expensive than the weapon so overkill missile salvos is not a bad strategy either, but shields and armour are good equalisers as well.
In C# Aurora we will see slower, larger missiles which means more likely for PD to get closer to missile speed with its tracking speed. When you also add tracking bonus (which are suppose to be a bonus to the tracking speed of the weapon not like grade bonus). This obviously mean that small Gauss guns can become mathematically quite effective. In VB6 Aurora they rarely manage to reach the same speed as incoming missiles at same tech levels.
-
if you have shields, you should use them. but it doesn't follow that installing shields is intrinsically a good decision. maybe you, jorgen_cab, are only experiencing the ubiquity of leakers because you are spending resources on passive defenses that would have been sufficient to make your active defenses airtight. im not expressing certainty that such is the case, but the possibility of having reversed cause and effect is clearly present in your argument.
You have to look at shields as something that is not only useful for catching the occasional leakers, it is also quite useful against large missile salvos from box launchers penetrating your defences and very useful in beam combat. So the shields are not used for only one purpose. Shields and armour is part of layered defence system together with PD, AMM and other Beam weapon systems.
-
if both weapons are less than 100%, large isn't better because of less _average_ leakage, large is better because of less _uncertainty_ in leakage. 10 shots at 90% can be relied upon to get 7 hits; 20 shots at 45% at the same level of confidence only can be depended upon for 5. also, 1000 shots at .9% generate a ton of annoying log entries, screw that.
disregarding the occasionally obsolete enemy, there is a range of plausible speeds of missiles you might find headed in your way. you want your point defense in the hands of properly trained crew to have exactly 100% chance against a speed near the bottom of that range. that's all. imho, ymmv, dyodd, etc
the quote from charlie beeler way back in 2012 makes it sound like the tracking bonus is a percentage of the _missile speed_, i dunno how he would know, but it matches other allegations i can remember reading. if true, that's going to make all this moot because rail guns will be the only point defense worth using.
if you have shields, you should use them. but it doesn't follow that installing shields is intrinsically a good decision. maybe you, jorgen_cab, are only experiencing the ubiquity of leakers because you are spending resources on passive defenses that would have been sufficient to make your active defenses airtight. im not expressing certainty that such is the case, but the possibility of having reversed cause and effect is clearly present in your argument.
It is actually both. You need enough shield points to soak the largest leaks and a high enough recharge rate to soak the average. Failing at either means taking armour damage. I will refer to the chart attached to this post (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10443.msg115299#msg115299) to demonstrate. All Gauss cannons have the same rated average (yellow line), but smaller guns experience worse leakage spikes (green line). Unless your PD is saturated so that the hit spikes (red line) balance them out, they reduce your actual average hit rate below the rated value. Your only choices are higher hit rate weapons or to increase tonnage. Unless you have a stupidly* high crew grade, if you are expecting incoming missiles more than 28% faster than your tracking speed then Gauss-100s are the only viable choice.
*Ten thousand HPMs firing at once to train crews lags the game like you wouldn't believe. Screw that. :)
If Charlie's post (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=5280.msg54125#msg54125) is correct then with a Missile Tracking Bonus of 100% a fixed-mount Gauss-100 with a firing rate of 8 would slightly outperform two Railguns due to not needing a reactor, and PD turrets would be rendered obsolete. I really hope that isn't how it works. :(
I know and understand the math just fine... the problem is that you assume that salvo size and number of shot will be exact... it almost never will be. One fire control only shoot at one salvo. If you destroy all missiles in the salvo any additional shots is wasted.
Not talking about fire-controls in this equation is also a bit misleading as it is very important. If you only have five fire-controls and seven incoming salvos then two of them will not be engaged at all no matter how many guns you have. Fire-controls are also allot more expensive than the guns (in general) and also compete with sensor costs on other ships as well.
So, lets say you shoot 8 shots at 100% against an 10 missile salvos you will need more fire-controls to finish them of than if you have 16 shots at 50% based on that you will waste less shots and quite often you will kill a single salvo in one shot... far more often than you will need three salvos to finish of all the missiles. If you fire at missile salvos less than 8 you will get the occasional leaking missile but in those instances the leak are generally so small it is insignificant anyway.
So... the problem is that is all depends and in practice using 100% will not always produce the best result. That is almost only true if the missile salvo you shoot against are equally dividable with the shot made at 100% (or smaller). If you need three salvos from PD to kill incoming salvos the leaking difference become extremely small.
Designing PD to shoot down incoming salvos with one fire-control per salvo is really difficult because missile salvos can vary allot in size. Depending on the ship who launches them and the intensity of AMM used against them. This means you often will need more fire-controls than often is required for a single salvo or you can be overwhelmed by really small missile salvos, such as from fighters for example.
If you want to be effective you will expect leaking missiles anyway otherwise you need to invest quite extensively in very expensive PD fire-controls. Fire controls are more expensive than the weapon so overkill missile salvos is not a bad strategy either, but shields and armour are good equalisers as well.
In C# Aurora we will see slower, larger missiles which means more likely for PD to get closer to missile speed with its tracking speed. When you also add tracking bonus (which are suppose to be a bonus to the tracking speed of the weapon not like grade bonus). This obviously mean that small Gauss guns can become mathematically quite effective. In VB6 Aurora they rarely manage to reach the same speed as incoming missiles at same tech levels.
It is clear that you do not understand the math as well as you think you do. The entire point of testing with equal shots per target is to eliminate such assumptions from the analysis. This allows hit rates for any shots per target ratio to be calculated accurately and from that the minimum effective weapon tonnage per incoming missile. The number of fire controls needed is also entirely unrelated to weapon effectiveness per tonne and thus was deliberately factored out so I wouldn't need to make any assumptions about it.
PD layout is complicated, but by breaking it up the problem becomes much easier to deal with.
In VB only x16 fighter-only FCs can match equal tech missile speeds.
When C# comes out I will be interested in analyzing the changes.
if you have shields, you should use them. but it doesn't follow that installing shields is intrinsically a good decision. maybe you, jorgen_cab, are only experiencing the ubiquity of leakers because you are spending resources on passive defenses that would have been sufficient to make your active defenses airtight. im not expressing certainty that such is the case, but the possibility of having reversed cause and effect is clearly present in your argument.
You have to look at shields as something that is not only useful for catching the occasional leakers, it is also quite useful against large missile salvos from box launchers penetrating your defences and very useful in beam combat. So the shields are not used for only one purpose. Shields and armour is part of layered defence system together with PD, AMM and other Beam weapon systems.
Very wide box launcher salvos are best left to AMMs but it is possible to use very wide turret arrays, just very expensive.
Defending against beam attacks is entirely unrelated to PD Gauss Turret design. Please stay on topic.
-
It is clear that you do not understand the math as well as you think you do. The entire point of testing with equal shots per target is to eliminate such assumptions from the analysis. This allows hit rates for any shots per target ratio to be calculated accurately and from that the minimum effective weapon tonnage per incoming missile. The number of fire controls needed is also entirely unrelated to weapon effectiveness per tonne and thus was deliberately factored out so I wouldn't need to make any assumptions about it.
PD layout is complicated, but by breaking it up the problem becomes much easier to deal with.
In VB only x16 fighter-only FCs can match equal tech missile speeds.
When C# comes out I will be interested in analyzing the changes.
rol against each salvo. This is not in question... So... yes I understand the math just fine and have done the test myself several times before years ago... that is when I noticed that the tracking speed bonus did not work for example.
I just highlight that this comparison is not the whole picture... I got the feeling from the original post that you should use max size guns because they always are more effective unless you are close to the missile speed in tracking (which you rarely are in VB6). What I pointed out is that number of fire-controls salvos size and ratios do matter in this context in what cannons are more valuable per tonnage too. Leaving it out is not giving you a very good overview on what is most effective in practice given all the variable out there that actually matter.
So the basic maths of probabilities is not in question, just the overall evaluation of the importance of it in relation to how real practical examples can turn out. If you only look at part of a problem you don't get a very good conclusion to the whole problem.
Very wide box launcher salvos are best left to AMMs but it is possible to use very wide turret arrays, just very expensive.
Defending against beam attacks is entirely unrelated to PD Gauss Turret design. Please stay on topic.
If you completely ignore that some component have other uses then you will assign them too much emphasis in that one calculation, that is just bad evaluation of how effective something really is. If a ship is going to have shields for other uses than for just leaking missiles they will be there no matter what so in that case you could include them for free as well as saying they are to weighty for their use.
I also think that only talking about tonnage as effective use of something is faulty to begin with... it is always a combination of cost, size and distribution of resource usage. If you use one resource too much you get an imbalance in your mining efforts and this is equally important in the entire context. On many occasion have some players complained at the lack of some specific resource only to see they are overly used in their designs over other resources, be it missiles, engines or some other components. I know it is not the topic... but again discussing one specific thing without context will often give the wrong impressions and conclusions.
If we only talk about weight to effective use in a very narrow spectrum then yes I agree that 100% size Gauss is more useful. But if you also add all other factors they do not have to be the best option.
-
It is clear that you do not understand the math as well as you think you do. The entire point of testing with equal shots per target is to eliminate such assumptions from the analysis. This allows hit rates for any shots per target ratio to be calculated accurately and from that the minimum effective weapon tonnage per incoming missile. The number of fire controls needed is also entirely unrelated to weapon effectiveness per tonne and thus was deliberately factored out so I wouldn't need to make any assumptions about it.
PD layout is complicated, but by breaking it up the problem becomes much easier to deal with.
In VB only x16 fighter-only FCs can match equal tech missile speeds.
When C# comes out I will be interested in analyzing the changes.
rol against each salvo. This is not in question... So... yes I understand the math just fine and have done the test myself several times before years ago... that is when I noticed that the tracking speed bonus did not work for example.
I just highlight that this comparison is not the whole picture... I got the feeling from the original post that you should use max size guns because they always are more effective unless you are close to the missile speed in tracking (which you rarely are in VB6). What I pointed out is that number of fire-controls salvos size and ratios do matter in this context in what cannons are more valuable per tonnage too. Leaving it out is not giving you a very good overview on what is most effective in practice given all the variable out there that actually matter.
So the basic maths of probabilities is not in question, just the overall evaluation of the importance of it in relation to how real practical examples can turn out. If you only look at part of a problem you don't get a very good conclusion to the whole problem.
Very wide box launcher salvos are best left to AMMs but it is possible to use very wide turret arrays, just very expensive.
Defending against beam attacks is entirely unrelated to PD Gauss Turret design. Please stay on topic.
If you completely ignore that some component have other uses then you will assign them too much emphasis in that one calculation, that is just bad evaluation of how effective something really is. If a ship is going to have shields for other uses than for just leaking missiles they will be there no matter what so in that case you could include them for free as well as saying they are to weighty for their use.
I also think that only talking about tonnage as effective use of something is faulty to begin with... it is always a combination of cost, size and distribution of resource usage. If you use one resource too much you get an imbalance in your mining efforts and this is equally important in the entire context. On many occasion have some players complained at the lack of some specific resource only to see they are overly used in their designs over other resources, be it missiles, engines or some other components. I know it is not the topic... but again discussing one specific thing without context will often give the wrong impressions and conclusions.
If we only talk about weight to effective use in a very narrow spectrum then yes I agree that 100% size Gauss is more useful. But if you also add all other factors they do not have to be the best option.
I never claimed it was the 'whole picture', just that those elements can be factored out so that gun size can be meaningfully considered on its own. As demonstrated, max size guns are always more effective unless your tracking speed is close to the target speed or you have an unrealistically high grade bonus.
Fire control ratio is a completely independent problem to the choice turret weapon, and therefore not relevant to that choice. If you want to discuss other topics, start a new thread.
I am going to ask you one last time: Stop derailing this thread.
-
you've claimed to factor out fire control, but you can't, entirely. any FC-per-expected-hit ratio that is achievable for full sized turrets is possible for smaller ones, but the reverse is not true. if you come to the conclusion on the basis of mean and standard deviation that a 100% size 4-cannon turret is optimal, you're going to die like a dog to a many-small-salvos attack. you've already asserted that dealing with omg box waves isn't in the GC's job description, so in that case in what sense is the 1500 ton turret even useful, let alone optimal?
-
It is clear that you do not understand the math as well as you think you do. The entire point of testing with equal shots per target is to eliminate such assumptions from the analysis. This allows hit rates for any shots per target ratio to be calculated accurately and from that the minimum effective weapon tonnage per incoming missile. The number of fire controls needed is also entirely unrelated to weapon effectiveness per tonne and thus was deliberately factored out so I wouldn't need to make any assumptions about it.
PD layout is complicated, but by breaking it up the problem becomes much easier to deal with.
In VB only x16 fighter-only FCs can match equal tech missile speeds.
When C# comes out I will be interested in analyzing the changes.
rol against each salvo. This is not in question... So... yes I understand the math just fine and have done the test myself several times before years ago... that is when I noticed that the tracking speed bonus did not work for example.
I just highlight that this comparison is not the whole picture... I got the feeling from the original post that you should use max size guns because they always are more effective unless you are close to the missile speed in tracking (which you rarely are in VB6). What I pointed out is that number of fire-controls salvos size and ratios do matter in this context in what cannons are more valuable per tonnage too. Leaving it out is not giving you a very good overview on what is most effective in practice given all the variable out there that actually matter.
So the basic maths of probabilities is not in question, just the overall evaluation of the importance of it in relation to how real practical examples can turn out. If you only look at part of a problem you don't get a very good conclusion to the whole problem.
Very wide box launcher salvos are best left to AMMs but it is possible to use very wide turret arrays, just very expensive.
Defending against beam attacks is entirely unrelated to PD Gauss Turret design. Please stay on topic.
If you completely ignore that some component have other uses then you will assign them too much emphasis in that one calculation, that is just bad evaluation of how effective something really is. If a ship is going to have shields for other uses than for just leaking missiles they will be there no matter what so in that case you could include them for free as well as saying they are to weighty for their use.
I also think that only talking about tonnage as effective use of something is faulty to begin with... it is always a combination of cost, size and distribution of resource usage. If you use one resource too much you get an imbalance in your mining efforts and this is equally important in the entire context. On many occasion have some players complained at the lack of some specific resource only to see they are overly used in their designs over other resources, be it missiles, engines or some other components. I know it is not the topic... but again discussing one specific thing without context will often give the wrong impressions and conclusions.
If we only talk about weight to effective use in a very narrow spectrum then yes I agree that 100% size Gauss is more useful. But if you also add all other factors they do not have to be the best option.
I never claimed it was the 'whole picture', just that those elements can be factored out so that gun size can be meaningfully considered on its own. As demonstrated, max size guns are always more effective unless your tracking speed is close to the target speed or you have an unrealistically high grade bonus.
Fire control ratio is a completely independent problem to the choice turret weapon, and therefore not relevant to that choice. If you want to discuss other topics, start a new thread.
I am going to ask you one last time: Stop derailing this thread.
If the only thing you want to really say with the topic is that knocking out five missiles with five 100% shots is more optimal than ten 50% shots then I agree with your statement, but that is at least to me rudimentary maths not a revelation. Good to mention it if someone didn't know though. Fact is that 50% reduction of the weapons are basically as bad as it gets (if that is the to hit ratio you finally end up with), really small guns get so many shots that the mean distribution is very tight, to the point it becomes negligible at the very small guns. There might even be a slight case of making 17% reduced canons to be very effective since they also have a 2% higher average efficiency (per tonnage, the same as 85% reduced Gauss) and enough shots to lower the mean distribution to almost negligible.
Another point is actual numbers... the worst leaker is a gun that ends up at a 50% hit chance if I'm not mistaken. Anything below will basically reduce the spread of the mean distribution as will anything above. As you get closer to 0% and 100% you end up at absolutes. This can definitely mean that a large 100% gun can become less reliable after all calculations is done. It all depends on the tracking speed versus missile speed which one will leak more.
Example
A 100% gun with a tracking speed of say 16000km/s shooting at a missile doing 39000km/s have a base to hit ratio of 41%. Let't say you hit at 90% at 10.000km and have a grade bonus of +40% and end at around 51% final to hit. That is worse than four times the 25% reduced size Gauss weapons hitting at around 13% a piece. The 25% reduced sized weapon has less spread and produce less leakers and is more reliable.
In my opinion the above example is more of a realistic scenario... but the problem is that it could just be another missile with another speed making the dice roll different and skew the result in favour of the larger gun. This is the real problem you face in a real game. I do think that this is important to point out so people don't draw the wrong conclusions.
I also believe that having more weapons in a turrets will also have some improvements in C# as well. Having four 100% guns in one turret can in many scenarios be overkill, especially against fighter launched salvos.
To be honest I don't know exactly what the thread is about anymore... I just responded to the replies with information I thought might be interesting to the topic of comparing Gauss turrets and their effect on the game. ;)
-
you've claimed to factor out fire control, but you can't, entirely. any FC-per-expected-hit ratio that is achievable for full sized turrets is possible for smaller ones, but the reverse is not true. if you come to the conclusion on the basis of mean and standard deviation that a 100% size 4-cannon turret is optimal, you're going to die like a dog to a many-small-salvos attack. you've already asserted that dealing with omg box waves isn't in the GC's job description, so in that case in what sense is the 1500 ton turret even useful, let alone optimal?
Targets per FC is independent of the number of FCs by definition. The data shows that accuracy per shot is more important than the number of shots fired to hit a given number of targets at minimum cost and that larger turrets are cheaper than the equivalent in smaller turrets, though the margins are admittedly small.
During my most recent engagement, the enemy was firing salvos of 9 with a 3x speed advantage. Defending with Gauss-100s with 95% FCs and 35% crew grade gives 43% cth per shot. It takes 4 shots to get a ~90% kill probability against one missile. It takes 28 shots to get a ~90% kill probability against a full salvo of 9. Pairing a quad with a triple would have been more efficient than two quads. To do the same thing with -50s would take 60 shots per salvo.
If the only thing you want to really say with the topic is that knocking out five missiles with five 100% shots is more optimal than ten 50% shots then I agree with your statement, but that is at least to me rudimentary maths not a revelation. Good to mention it if someone didn't know though. Fact is that 50% reduction of the weapons are basically as bad as it gets (if that is the to hit ratio you finally end up with), really small guns get so many shots that the mean distribution is very tight, to the point it becomes negligible at the very small guns. There might even be a slight case of making 17% reduced canons to be very effective since they also have a 2% higher average efficiency (per tonnage, the same as 85% reduced Gauss) and enough shots to lower the mean distribution to almost negligible.
Another point is actual numbers... the worst leaker is a gun that ends up at a 50% hit chance if I'm not mistaken. Anything below will basically reduce the spread of the mean distribution as will anything above. As you get closer to 0% and 100% you end up at absolutes. This can definitely mean that a large 100% gun can become less reliable after all calculations is done. It all depends on the tracking speed versus missile speed which one will leak more.
Example
A 100% gun with a tracking speed of say 16000km/s shooting at a missile doing 39000km/s have a base to hit ratio of 41%. Let't say you hit at 90% at 10.000km and have a grade bonus of +40% and end at around 51% final to hit. That is worse than four times the 25% reduced size Gauss weapons hitting at around 13% a piece. The 25% reduced sized weapon has less spread and produce less leakers and is more reliable.
In my opinion the above example is more of a realistic scenario... but the problem is that it could just be another missile with another speed making the dice roll different and skew the result in favour of the larger gun. This is the real problem you face in a real game. I do think that this is important to point out so people don't draw the wrong conclusions.
I also believe that having more weapons in a turrets will also have some improvements in C# as well. Having four 100% guns in one turret can in many scenarios be overkill, especially against fighter launched salvos.
To be honest I don't know exactly what the thread is about anymore... I just responded to the replies with information I thought might be interesting to the topic of comparing Gauss turrets and their effect on the game. ;)
Using your example, the 100% gun takes 3-4 shots to get a 90% cth one missile and 13-14 shots to have a 90% chance of killing 5 incoming missiles. The 25% gun takes 16-17 shots for 90% cth against one and 59-60 shots for 90% cth 5.
As it says in the title, this thread was supposed to be a comparison of PD Gauss Turrets. I apologize for getting snippy.
-
spike.
"Targets per FC is independent of the number of FCs by definition"
airball. it's firing increments per expected hit that's the relevant parameter. this parameter is not determined by the kind of cannon you use, but is *limited* by the size of the cannon and turrets.
hypothetical 1500 ton quad-full-gauss turret can engage one salvo. there is absolutely nothing you can do to improve this. two 750 ton quad-50%-gauss turrets could, potentially, engage two. therefore, there are scenarios, common and important scenarios, where two half-size turrets are _twice as good_ as one full size one.
-
Using your example, the 100% gun takes 3-4 shots to get a 90% cth one missile and 13-14 shots to have a 90% chance of killing 5 incoming missiles. The 25% gun takes 16-17 shots for 90% cth against one and 59-60 shots for 90% cth 5.
As it says in the title, this thread was supposed to be a comparison of PD Gauss Turrets. I apologize for getting snippy.
That is completely irrelevant in this context.
What I meant to prove is the mean distribution of results. the closer the to hit goes to either 0% or 100% the mean distribution of expected results is the same going from 50% if you add and remove dice accordingly.
We was talking about mean distribution not the chance of getting a certain specific number of hits, that is different.
shooting 8 shots at 50% will produce a far more diverse result than rolling 20 dice at 20% which will have roughly the same mean distribution as rolling 5 80% dice even if there is a potential of some results of 6 misses on the 20% dice, but those results become far less common the lower the percentage versus increase on dice. but the mean distribution are practically the same.
Fact is that a gun that fires at close to 50% to hit rate will produce the most leaking missiles as long as you add or remove shots linear to the to hit rate and do a comparison. You can test this if you want, it will be so...
-
jorgen_cab
your claim is incorrect. 20 shots at .20 has a greater dispersion than 8 shots at .5. i reckon that you correctly remembered but misconstrued the variance of the binomial- misconstrued because in this case it is mu, not n that is being held constant.
-
jorgen_cab
your claim is incorrect. 20 shots at .20 has a greater dispersion than 8 shots at .5. i reckon that you correctly remembered but misconstrued the variance of the binomial- misconstrued because in this case it is mu, not n that is being held constant.
Yes.. I constructed a program to do some actual statistical tests... since doing it in the game are a bit difficult. Lower size will get a small extra leaking except for the 87% size which actually seem to produce better result in most realistic instances than 100%
From my tests... for example...
Missile salvo size: 5
Missile salvos: 50.000
Missile Speed: 10000 km/s
PD tracking Speed: 5000 km/s
PD to hit modifier from fire-control: 0.9
Size 100, 10 shots, about 45% hit ratio : Average about 4.10 hits per salvo
Size 87, 12 shots, about 39% hit ratio : Average about 4.17 hits per salvo
Size 50, 20 shots, about 22.5% hit ratio : Average about 3.99 hits per salvo
Size 25, 40 shots, about 11.2% hit ratio : Average about 3.92 hits per salvo
Size 17, 60 shots, about 7.6% hit ratio : Average about 3.94 hits per salvo
So... the most effective gun seem to actually be 87% as far as I can tell from a leaking perspective in real terms. The 87% gun are weaker at around 75-100 tracking speed if grade bonus is 100. This interval will then change depending on grade bonus... so it depends... but differences is small and in general the 87% seem better since it get more benefits unless you are in a 25-30% interval.
You can change the numbers above of course but in general the same result will stand and the differences will diminish fast as salvo size go above the turret shot ratio. Although in realistic terms the differences in leaking from a 100% to a 17% gun are so small that other considerations such as fire controls, turret design versus ship design etc should be more important.
If you are often engaging rather small salvos of around 4-8 missiles then having a large 100% quad turret might not be that useful and too big for some ships. You might need more fire-controls and smaller turrets.
To put the above in more real terms... If you are engaging 100 incoming salvos each with 5 missiles the 100% size turret will miss 90 missiles out of 500 while the size 17% turret will miss 106 missiles.
If anyone want to do their own testing you can use this little .NET app if they wish... I provide no support.. ;) https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj1kz6r9aemtpz7/Aurora_PDtest.exe?dl=0
-
spike.
"Targets per FC is independent of the number of FCs by definition"
airball. it's firing increments per expected hit that's the relevant parameter. this parameter is not determined by the kind of cannon you use, but is *limited* by the size of the cannon and turrets.
hypothetical 1500 ton quad-full-gauss turret can engage one salvo. there is absolutely nothing you can do to improve this. two 750 ton quad-50%-gauss turrets could, potentially, engage two. therefore, there are scenarios, common and important scenarios, where two half-size turrets are _twice as good_ as one full size one.
It is hits per FC per increment per tonne.
You can only engage as many salvos per tick as you have PD FCs. It also takes a minimum number of shots to kill a salvo. Those are entirely independent questions.
A dual 100 is superior to a quad 50 unless your grade bonus is extremely high. (100% bonus against same speed or slower, 200% against 2x speed missiles, etc)
A quad mount is superior to a pair of duals or four singles of the same hit rate that share the same fire control.
jorgen_cab
your claim is incorrect. 20 shots at .20 has a greater dispersion than 8 shots at .5. i reckon that you correctly remembered but misconstrued the variance of the binomial- misconstrued because in this case it is mu, not n that is being held constant.
Yes.. I constructed a program to do some actual statistical tests... since doing it in the game are a bit difficult. Lower size will get a small extra leaking except for the 87% size which actually seem to produce better result in most realistic instances than 100%
From my tests... for example...
Missile salvo size: 5
Missile salvos: 50.000
Missile Speed: 10000 km/s
PD tracking Speed: 5000 km/s
PD to hit modifier from fire-control: 0.9
Size 100, 10 shots, about 45% hit ratio : Average about 4.10 hits per salvo
Size 87, 12 shots, about 39% hit ratio : Average about 4.17 hits per salvo
Size 50, 20 shots, about 22.5% hit ratio : Average about 3.99 hits per salvo
Size 25, 40 shots, about 11.2% hit ratio : Average about 3.92 hits per salvo
Size 17, 60 shots, about 7.6% hit ratio : Average about 3.94 hits per salvo
So... the most effective gun seem to actually be 87% as far as I can tell from a leaking perspective in real terms. The 87% gun are weaker at around 75-100 tracking speed if grade bonus is 100. This interval will then change depending on grade bonus... so it depends... but differences is small and in general the 87% seem better since it get more benefits unless you are in a 25-30% interval.
You can change the numbers above of course but in general the same result will stand and the differences will diminish fast as salvo size go above the turret shot ratio. Although in realistic terms the differences in leaking from a 100% to a 17% gun are so small that other considerations such as fire controls, turret design versus ship design etc should be more important.
If you are often engaging rather small salvos of around 4-8 missiles then having a large 100% quad turret might not be that useful and too big for some ships. You might need more fire-controls and smaller turrets.
To put the above in more real terms... If you are engaging 100 incoming salvos each with 5 missiles the 100% size turret will miss 90 missiles out of 500 while the size 17% turret will miss 106 missiles.
If anyone want to do their own testing you can use this little .NET app if they wish... I provide no support.. ;) https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj1kz6r9aemtpz7/Aurora_PDtest.exe?dl=0
Jorgen, check your numbers. There is no Gauss-87. There is a Gauss-85.
-
spike
are you under the impression that a second fire control will permit one turret to engage two salvos?
-
spike
are you under the impression that a second fire control will permit one turret to engage two salvos?
No, a turret can't be shared or split between controls.
-
spike.
"Targets per FC is independent of the number of FCs by definition"
airball. it's firing increments per expected hit that's the relevant parameter. this parameter is not determined by the kind of cannon you use, but is *limited* by the size of the cannon and turrets.
hypothetical 1500 ton quad-full-gauss turret can engage one salvo. there is absolutely nothing you can do to improve this. two 750 ton quad-50%-gauss turrets could, potentially, engage two. therefore, there are scenarios, common and important scenarios, where two half-size turrets are _twice as good_ as one full size one.
It is hits per FC per increment per tonne.
You can only engage as many salvos per tick as you have PD FCs. It also takes a minimum number of shots to kill a salvo. Those are entirely independent questions.
A dual 100 is superior to a quad 50 unless your grade bonus is extremely high. (100% bonus against same speed or slower, 200% against 2x speed missiles, etc)
A quad mount is superior to a pair of duals or four singles of the same hit rate that share the same fire control.
jorgen_cab
your claim is incorrect. 20 shots at .20 has a greater dispersion than 8 shots at .5. i reckon that you correctly remembered but misconstrued the variance of the binomial- misconstrued because in this case it is mu, not n that is being held constant.
Yes.. I constructed a program to do some actual statistical tests... since doing it in the game are a bit difficult. Lower size will get a small extra leaking except for the 87% size which actually seem to produce better result in most realistic instances than 100%
From my tests... for example...
Missile salvo size: 5
Missile salvos: 50.000
Missile Speed: 10000 km/s
PD tracking Speed: 5000 km/s
PD to hit modifier from fire-control: 0.9
Size 100, 10 shots, about 45% hit ratio : Average about 4.10 hits per salvo
Size 87, 12 shots, about 39% hit ratio : Average about 4.17 hits per salvo
Size 50, 20 shots, about 22.5% hit ratio : Average about 3.99 hits per salvo
Size 25, 40 shots, about 11.2% hit ratio : Average about 3.92 hits per salvo
Size 17, 60 shots, about 7.6% hit ratio : Average about 3.94 hits per salvo
So... the most effective gun seem to actually be 87% as far as I can tell from a leaking perspective in real terms. The 87% gun are weaker at around 75-100 tracking speed if grade bonus is 100. This interval will then change depending on grade bonus... so it depends... but differences is small and in general the 87% seem better since it get more benefits unless you are in a 25-30% interval.
You can change the numbers above of course but in general the same result will stand and the differences will diminish fast as salvo size go above the turret shot ratio. Although in realistic terms the differences in leaking from a 100% to a 17% gun are so small that other considerations such as fire controls, turret design versus ship design etc should be more important.
If you are often engaging rather small salvos of around 4-8 missiles then having a large 100% quad turret might not be that useful and too big for some ships. You might need more fire-controls and smaller turrets.
To put the above in more real terms... If you are engaging 100 incoming salvos each with 5 missiles the 100% size turret will miss 90 missiles out of 500 while the size 17% turret will miss 106 missiles.
If anyone want to do their own testing you can use this little .NET app if they wish... I provide no support.. ;) https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj1kz6r9aemtpz7/Aurora_PDtest.exe?dl=0
Jorgen, check your numbers. There is no Gauss-87. There is a Gauss-85.
Yes... 87% was wrong (brain fart)... it should be 85% and that is equal with 100% or actually slightly better than 100% in the above case.
As far as I know Steve said something about gearing weight for turrets. So the efficiency of shots per ton actually might be worth it in C# even if a 50% is slightly worse than a 100% gun. So we will have to wait for evidence of this before we know.
In VB6 Aurora there is according to my tests about a 1% difference in performance of the 100% and 50% gun in my test so the saving in weight from a twin to quad turret make that small performance boost extremely small or even no existent in a per tonnage perspective. I have not run the actual numbers on that though.
-
Yes... 87% was wrong (brain fart)... it should be 85% and that is equal with 100% or actually slightly better than 100% in the above case.
As far as I know Steve said something about gearing weight for turrets. So the efficiency of shots per ton actually might be worth it in C# even if a 50% is slightly worse than a 100% gun. So we will have to wait for evidence of this before we know.
In VB6 Aurora there is according to my tests about a 1% difference in performance of the 100% and 50% gun in my test so the saving in weight from a twin to quad turret make that small performance boost extremely small or even no existent in a per tonnage perspective. I have not run the actual numbers on that though.
83% would have a rated average exactly equal to a 100%, so giving them 85% cth is arguably a bug. They still leak more due to greater dispersion.
Gear size is: round(weapon size * weapon count) * (turret speed/turret speed tech) * weapon count factor / 10
WCF for single is 1.0, double is 0.95, triple is 0.925, and quad is 0.9
Rounding only applies to 10% and 8% gauss cannons.
I'll run the numbers later.
-
Yes... 87% was wrong (brain fart)... it should be 85% and that is equal with 100% or actually slightly better than 100% in the above case.
As far as I know Steve said something about gearing weight for turrets. So the efficiency of shots per ton actually might be worth it in C# even if a 50% is slightly worse than a 100% gun. So we will have to wait for evidence of this before we know.
In VB6 Aurora there is according to my tests about a 1% difference in performance of the 100% and 50% gun in my test so the saving in weight from a twin to quad turret make that small performance boost extremely small or even no existent in a per tonnage perspective. I have not run the actual numbers on that though.
83% would have a rated average exactly equal to a 100%, so giving them 85% cth is arguably a bug. They still leak more due to greater dispersion.
Gear size is: round(weapon size * weapon count) * (turret speed/turret speed tech) * weapon count factor / 10
WCF for single is 1.0, double is 0.95, triple is 0.925, and quad is 0.9
Rounding only applies to 10% and 8% gauss cannons.
I'll run the numbers later.
Yes.. the dispersion is greater but the slightly higher percentage to weight ratio still in the example above make the 85% slightly better. This will obviously change a bit depending on the actual numbers to both worse and better. I ran about 1.000.000 calculation just to be sure of the result. The 85% destroyed an average of 4.114 missiles while the 100% destroyed an average of 4.107 missiles.
83% add up to 99.6 while 85% add up to 102% for the weight. This is obviously a conscious decision by Steve since the 17% canon also add up to 102% and is exactly five times smaller than the 85% cannon.
A twin 100% turret with a 4x tracking speed in my test have a weight of 15.56HS and a quad has 15.38HS which basically means the average to hit ration per tonnage are almost identical between a twin 100% and quad 50% gun with the number in my test above.
100%
4.107 missile hits with a turret size 15.56HS is 0.267 hits per HS.
50%
3.987 missile hits with a turret size of 15.38HS is 0.259 hits per HS
The difference are less than one percent in efficiency in this particular instance.
In C# the gearing bonus is suppose to be better so it might actually make it more effective with more smaller guns for that single reason.
At least in my opinion the differences are so minuscule that it really does not matter what you do and both have pros and cons.
The guns and turrets you choose to develop probably have more to do with research point and the general design parameters rather than the efficiency since the difference in efficiency is so small and might be way less important than the amount of RP and design choices different types of sizes of gun will give you.
Another very important part as discussed before is the fire controls because these are way more expensive than the turrets, small but expensive. If you expect incoming salvos to be around 8 missiles (or multiples of it) large then one quad 100% turret might not be enough but two is a great overkill so you opt to build two 85% turrets instead. One 100% turret will on average kill (if each barrel shoots 4 shots) 6.75 missiles while two will destroy on average 7.99 missiles. One 85% quad will kill on average 5.95 and two will kill 7.94 missiles. Even two 67% turrets might be acceptable per fire control with an average kill of 7.65 missiles per salvo since some leakers is acceptable if you have shields and good armour (which might be something you need no matter what). This is where design philosophy comes into the picture, perhaps a quad 67% turret also is small enough that some ship can mount one where two is too large which give you some design leverage to really large turrets of other designs.
-
Even two 67% turrets might be acceptable per fire control with an average kill of 7.65 missiles per salvo since some leakers is acceptable if you have shields and good armour
The problem with pd consistently leaving one missile in a salvo alive is that the next fire control will happily target this one missile instead of a fresh salvo, wasting most of its shots.
-
Even two 67% turrets might be acceptable per fire control with an average kill of 7.65 missiles per salvo since some leakers is acceptable if you have shields and good armour
The problem with pd consistently leaving one missile in a salvo alive is that the next fire control will happily target this one missile instead of a fresh salvo, wasting most of its shots.
To be honest I don't remember exactly how the game target which salvo and in which order they engage.
In my opinion the game should make it so that the largest salvo is always targeted first with the biggest PD batteries even if one salvo have been engaged in order to make fire-controls more affordable. The fire controls are pretty much the most costly of all the components for point defence.
This way the odd laser batteries meant for anti-ship work will always fire last and hopefully targets salvos with only one or a few missiles left.
-
Yes.. the dispersion is greater but the slightly higher percentage to weight ratio still in the example above make the 85% slightly better. This will obviously change a bit depending on the actual numbers to both worse and better. I ran about 1.000.000 calculation just to be sure of the result. The 85% destroyed an average of 4.114 missiles while the 100% destroyed an average of 4.107 missiles.
83% add up to 99.6 while 85% add up to 102% for the weight. This is obviously a conscious decision by Steve since the 17% canon also add up to 102% and is exactly five times smaller than the 85% cannon.
A twin 100% turret with a 4x tracking speed in my test have a weight of 15.56HS and a quad has 15.38HS which basically means the average to hit ration per tonnage are almost identical between a twin 100% and quad 50% gun with the number in my test above.
100%
4.107 missile hits with a turret size 15.56HS is 0.267 hits per HS.
50%
3.987 missile hits with a turret size of 15.38HS is 0.259 hits per HS
The difference are less than one percent in efficiency in this particular instance.
In C# the gearing bonus is suppose to be better so it might actually make it more effective with more smaller guns for that single reason.
At least in my opinion the differences are so minuscule that it really does not matter what you do and both have pros and cons.
The guns and turrets you choose to develop probably have more to do with research point and the general design parameters rather than the efficiency since the difference in efficiency is so small and might be way less important than the amount of RP and design choices different types of sizes of gun will give you.
Another very important part as discussed before is the fire controls because these are way more expensive than the turrets, small but expensive. If you expect incoming salvos to be around 8 missiles (or multiples of it) large then one quad 100% turret might not be enough but two is a great overkill so you opt to build two 85% turrets instead. One 100% turret will on average kill (if each barrel shoots 4 shots) 6.75 missiles while two will destroy on average 7.99 missiles. One 85% quad will kill on average 5.95 and two will kill 7.94 missiles. Even two 67% turrets might be acceptable per fire control with an average kill of 7.65 missiles per salvo since some leakers is acceptable if you have shields and good armour (which might be something you need no matter what). This is where design philosophy comes into the picture, perhaps a quad 67% turret also is small enough that some ship can mount one where two is too large which give you some design leverage to really large turrets of other designs.
I ran some numbers. The 85 has a 2% weight advantage vs baseline, but to achieve 90% confidence vs leaks around a 22% penalty, increasing above 50% against smaller salvos. At 90% confidence one in ten salvos will leak and there is a 1% chance of two salvos in a row leaking.
cth.py - a Python script to calculate shots needed to kill salvos of various sizes at any cth, to a specified confidence.
cth.dat shots per salvo for salvos from 1-100 at cth from 1-100 with 90% confidence.
85cth.png tonnage per target for 90% success
X axis is number of missiles
Y axis is relative tonnage per missile
lower is better
1.0 is equal to a gauss 100
2.0 is double a gauss 100
The line is jagged because you can't fire a partial shot.