Missile launcher size limitation idea.

[Ultimoos (OP)]

I was thinking how box launchers make very large missile salvos possible from large ships and I have an idea how to nerf this a bit.
How about making the missile launcher size limited to a certain ship size range.  For example:
Box launchers - up to 1000t
size 0. 3 - up to 5000t
size 0. 4 - up to 25000t
size 0. 6 - up to 125000t
size 0. 75 - up to 625000t
size 1 - no limitation.
This would help encourage making smaller ships.
Also include this as an option in galaxy generation and make it adjustable.

So, how about it? Simple idea, but I have no idea if easy to implement.

[Andrew]

Why?
NPR's don't use mass launchers. You can already choose not too so why force your play style on everyone?

[nuclearslurpee]

Even if this was a good idea (and I don't personally think it is), Steve has been very clear that he is not interested in limiting what kinds of weapons a ship can mount based arbitrarily on the size of the ship - specifically, there are not any weapons or capabilities which only small fighters can have but not larger ships.

This is to avoid the inconsistency of having fighters which are far better-armed than large ships with fighter-specific weapons - the logical problem with this is that if the weapons are so good on fighters, why can't larger ships use them as well. This was a problem in Starfire which Aurora was loosely derived from.

Otherwise, box launchers do not really need such limitations, as there are currently ways to beat them in-game without much difficulty. Fast-firing AMMs are actually very effective against box launcher salvos as long as you can provide a sufficiently long sensor coverage to enable targeting the salvos at a long distance - large Res-1 sensors can do this, but fighter-based sensors are even more effective. There is also a strategic concern - once you have fired off your box launchers, your fleet is basically useless and vulnerable to a counter-attack. If your salvos are dealt with and fail to destroy the enemy, you've expended a lot of resources for no gains and are in imminent danger from the enemy counterattack.

The bigger "problem" is that the NPRs are simply unable to deal with box launcher salvos, but frankly they are unable to deal with nearly anything the player does to gain an advantage - we already have the capability to make faster ships and outrange the NPRs with beam weapons, for instance. NPRs in Aurora really exist as a strategic and roleplay element, not as a serious tactical challenge for the player - if you want tactical intrigue you are better off playing a game with multiple player races as many others on this forum have done.

[Garfunkel]

Even better, join the Discord and the PvP tournaments they host. Lot of fun (and trash talking) and you get to test your designs against other peoples' designs.

[Migi]

The problem with box launchers is that they let you increase your salvo size by a factor of x6.6 (the smallest reloadable launchers give you a x3.3 increase in salvo size).
Increased salvo size is probably the best way to increase penetration of missile defences, instead of needing to shoot down 10 missiles per volley, you're up against 66. So it's inevitable that box launchers dominate.
I think the system needs a rebalance, but I don't have any good suggestions off hand, other than severely limiting the bonus from reduced size launchers to x2.

[cdrtwohy]

while yes Boxes give you a massive alpha capability it doesn't really matter. the way missile's work that alpha strike can and will be wasted on very few ships. Missiles don't retarget on the same increment that the target is destroyed. Boxes take for ever and a day to reload so they are useless in a sustained fight. the most important thing is ikf you think box launchers are op then you dont have to use them, this is a story and RP generator more than a game with a victory condition.

[Garfunkel]

Yeah, box launchers are not as dominant as they first appear. As Nuclearslurpee said, it is very much possible to make a combined AMM/PD defence that can block them - it's just a numbers game. And on operational level, once you've blown your wad, you're done and have to retreat to re-arm. And as cdrtwohy said, missiles don't re-target in the same increment, meaning that box launchers usually generate lot of overkill, which is waste of resources. Finally, on the strategic level, you have to be able to keep your missile production up with missile consumption.

The only problem with them is that NPRs & spoilers don't use them. Once Steve fixes that - probably at the same time he makes NPRs use fighters - we'll be just fine, balance-wise.

[Migi]

I made this table to try and illustrate my point:

Code: [Select]

Launcher Reload Volley
Size Mod Modifier Size Mod
100% 1 1.00
75% 2 1.33
60% 5 1.67
40% 20 2.50
30% 100 3.33
15% (Box) 6.67
A fleet of a fixed size can launch a volley 6.67 times larger than if it uses box launchers instead of default 100% size launchers.
Comparing 30% launchers against box launchers, the box launchers can fire a volley 2.0 times larger than the 30% launchers.
This is without factoring in any space needed for magazines (which are the whole point of reloadable launchers).
Repeated volleys totalling the same number of missiles will do less damage overall because each volley has to penetrate point defence and will lose some % of its strength each time.


Answering generally:


Overkill
All missile strikes are potentially subject to overkill, box launchers don't affect that one way or another. Lack of intel, bad judgement, mis-clicks, or luck are the main sources of overkill.


Missile retargeting (or lack thereof)
I'm not aware that Steve intends to add retargeting. If it gets added, it would apply to all missile strikes, not just box launcher strikes. I honestly have no idea why it would make any difference to this discussion.


Sustained combat
The point of a massed missile alpha strike is to ensure there isn't sustained combat. The battle should be decided in 1 volley, then some mopping up. If the volley is not enough then you've lost at the strategic level, but at the tactical level you gave yourself the best chance possible.
If you don't need to use all your missiles in the first engagement you are free to keep going, otherwise you pull back and return in a month or so.


Strategic tempo
A beam fleet's strategic tempo is determined by the ability to repair damaged ships and build replacements for destroyed ships. A missile fleet's strategic tempo is limited by all of those factors, and additionally by your missile resupply and/or production rate, regardless of whether the fleet that uses them has box launchers or reloadable launchers.
I don't think that strategic tempo is very relevant to the tactical balance between box launchers vs reloadable launchers.


Mass alpha strikes are beatable
Arithmetically you can use half as many ships to successfully defend against a strike using 30% sized launchers than you need to defend against a box launcher strike. Or you can defend against a fleet twice as big, or defend twice as many places.


Roleplay
The ability to roleplay does not preclude having a balanced system, or discussing how to make balance better.


NPRs & Spoilers
Giving NPRs access to an unbalanced weapon doesn't make it balanced. It just makes the game a race to see who gets there first, then curbstomp the other side. I suspect that Steve sees enough complaints about AMM spam that he has no desire to generate more complaints from people who are salty that their fleet got obliterated in a single missile volley.

[Scandinavian]

Alpha strike only matters vs. beam PD. Against AMMs total magazine depth is more important than alpha strike (assuming good sensor coverage). Against shields DPS is more important than either. In both the latter cases sustained fire from reloadable launchers + magazines gives you more penetration per tonnage because you get much greater magazine depth per tonnage.

Spending 30 hull space on box launchers gives you 200 MSP worth of missiles that you can fire all at once. Spending the same 30 hull spaces on full size launchers + magazines at a 1:1 launcher:magazine ratio gives you around 300 MSP worth of missiles, which you can fire in about 20 launch cycles.

Against an enemy that can take 10 MSP worth of your missiles on his beam PD + shields per launch cycle, yes, box launchers mean you put 190 MSP on target vs. 100 MSP for magazine launchers. But against an enemy that has sufficient magazine depth and sensor coverage to kill 150 MSP with AMMs, you get 50 MSP on target with box launchers and 150 on target with magazine launchers.

Obviously a smart enemy will use layered defenses, so there will be a mix of AMMs, shields and beam PD. Against a peer opponent it is not clear to me that there is an a priori optimal design.

[Garfunkel]

Overkill and re-targeting matter for box launchers more than for other launchers because box launchers are "one & done" type of weapon. Unless you're using carriers of course.

When you don't know the details of enemy defences - AMM / PD / shields / armour - you can't estimate how many missiles are needed to wipe them out. With "big" launchers, you can test things out, knowing that your "alpha strike" capability isn't degraded. With box launchers, if you do the same, you're reducing the size of the salvo you can throw out. So, with box launchers you're far more committed since you can't reload them during the battle. Unless you're certain of enemy capabilities, it's better to throw all your missiles at the enemy as a big alpha strike rather than parcel them out.

Which means that box launcher salvoes are more likely to be wasted due to overkill.

[Migi]

Alpha strike only matters vs. beam PD. Against AMMs total magazine depth is more important than alpha strike (assuming good sensor coverage).

I disagree.
If you fire a single massed volley, the missiles pass through the AMM interception window once.
The target can only fire AMMs for roughly (AMM range / (Missile speed - Target speed)).
If the missiles come in multiple smaller volleys then the duration is extended by roughly (number of volleys * reload time).
At minimum the target can fire AMMs for longer (I'm assuming the target uses normal AMM launchers not box AMM launchers). The phrase defeat in detail springs to mind, although it's not an exact fit.

Against shields DPS is more important than either.

I disagree. If you let the target survive the first strike then you give them time to recharge some or all of their shields, which means you must spend warhead strength bringing them down again. This is sub-optimal.
A missile strike should account for shield strength when calculating volley size. The objective is to reduce the shields to 0 _and_ do enough damage to the hull to destroy the target or render it mission killed. If you have no intel, trying to calculate this is a gamble. (If you forget to account for shields then blame the Tac officer.)
If you haven't got any intel, firing a single missile at an enemy will at minimum tell you what ECM they have, and they might reveal if they have AMMs or what PD they have.

In both the latter cases sustained fire from reloadable launchers + magazines gives you more penetration per tonnage because you get much greater magazine depth per tonnage. Spending 30 hull space on box launchers gives you 200 MSP worth of missiles that you can fire all at once. Spending the same 30 hull spaces on full size launchers + magazines at a 1:1 launcher:magazine ratio gives you around 300 MSP worth of missiles, which you can fire in about 20 launch cycles.

I don't want to start an argument about the precise magazine specs, but you can only approach a total of 300 MSP if your magazine has no extra HTK and very high efficiency tech. In most cases I grant that you'll probably have more MSP to hand, but it seems unlikely to be 50% more.

Against an enemy that can take 10 MSP worth of your missiles on his beam PD + shields per launch cycle, yes, box launchers mean you put 190 MSP on target vs. 100 MSP for magazine launchers. But against an enemy that has sufficient magazine depth and sensor coverage to kill 150 MSP with AMMs, you get 50 MSP on target with box launchers and 150 on target with magazine launchers.

If I've understood your scenario correctly (and it's late so forgive me if I missed something), if you fire 15 MSP per volley at a target which can destroy 10 MSP with beam PD, the target only needs to use AMMs to destroy 5 MSP per volley.
After 20 volleys the target has destroyed 100 MSP with AMMs and 200 with beam PD, taking no damage. It still has AMMs to counter another 50 MSP of missiles.

[Scandinavian]

Alpha strike only matters vs. beam PD. Against AMMs total magazine depth is more important than alpha strike (assuming good sensor coverage).

I disagree.
If you fire a single massed volley, the missiles pass through the AMM interception window once.
The target can only fire AMMs for roughly (AMM range / (Missile speed - Target speed)).

Peer and near-peer adversaries with proper sensor coverage can empty their AMM magazines inside that window. Even if they have to compromise a bit on their launcher:magazine ratio to do it, they still get greater weight of fire per incoming missile than if you use standard cycle launchers.

Against shields DPS is more important than either.

I disagree. If you let the target survive the first strike then you give them time to recharge some or all of their shields, which means you must spend warhead strength bringing them down again. This is sub-optimal.
A missile strike should account for shield strength when calculating volley size. The objective is to reduce the shields to 0 _and_ do enough damage to the hull to destroy the target or render it mission killed.

If you are bringing that kind of superior firepower to the fight, then it almost doesn't matter what your ship designs are. Against a properly layered anti-missile defense, being able to mission-kill the entire enemy fleet with missiles means you've arranged for a massive imbalance in technology or tonnage. If you consistently pull off that kind of engagements, good on you for your strategic and operational planning, but any half-decent missile boat design will work for it.

Against an enemy that can take 10 MSP worth of your missiles on his beam PD + shields per launch cycle, yes, box launchers mean you put 190 MSP on target vs. 100 MSP for magazine launchers. But against an enemy that has sufficient magazine depth and sensor coverage to kill 150 MSP with AMMs, you get 50 MSP on target with box launchers and 150 on target with magazine launchers.

If I've understood your scenario correctly (and it's late so forgive me if I missed something), if you fire 15 MSP per volley at a target which can destroy 10 MSP with beam PD, the target only needs to use AMMs to destroy 5 MSP per volley.
After 20 volleys the target has destroyed 100 MSP with AMMs and 200 with beam PD, taking no damage. It still has AMMs to counter another 50 MSP of missiles.

In this example, the enemy picked either beam PD or AMMs, not both. If they mix and match 50:50 by tonnage but retain the same total capability, the box launchers put 120 MSP on target and the magazine launchers put 125 MSP on target.

If you double the amount of defensive hull space available, then box launchers perform better against the 50:50 tonnage split configuration. But if you double the amount of defensive hull space, there are configurations that would hard counter any combination of box and magazine launchers from the attacker (in fact any configuration between 100 % AMMs and about 2:1 AMM:beamPD will render the defender invulnerable in that scenario).

This does show that box launchers have a role as a way to impose costs on superior adversaries - they can be the difference between being hard countered by enemy defenses or being able to gradually attrition them (if you have sufficiently superior speed and strategic depth that you can run away between engagements to reload). They are also great for picket forces, whose job is to detect baddies and impose some costs on them for advancing while you scramble an actual battle fleet, not to actually kill them. But those are strategic and operational considerations.

[Andrew]

The AMM defenses of a fleet (Beam and missile) will on average kill X missiles from a salvo based on the number of shots and the chance to kill. This number will be the same for one large salvo or 20 small salvo's (With AMM's there may be a decrease in X if your multiple salvo's are both in range to be engaged at the same time, this almost never happens in my experience ).
So if you fire 30 salvo's of missiles you will lose 30X of them without hits, if yoy fire the equivlant of 20 salvos of missiles in 1 salvo you will lose X. A single large salvo is always better at penetrating defenses. You can easily waste missiles overkilling targets but this is often less than you would have lost by letting the enemy defenses get multiple go's at your missiles.
In both cases if X is larger than your salvo then there was no point firing your missiles. With reloadable launchers you discover that before firing multiple salvo's but X can be lower.
I cannot think of a case except were the enemy has no anti-missile defenses were multiple salvo's will not lose more missiles to the defenses than one one salvo would using identical missiles.
Example
Enemy fleet with 2 laser escorts with 20 10cm lasers with a 60 % intercept chance and 2 AMM escorts which will get to fire 5 salvo's of 20 missiles with a 50% kill chance against each of your salvos this fleet will expect to shoot down at least 72 missiles , So if you fire 20 salvo's of 60 missiles at them you get 0 hits, one salvo of 800 missiles you will get about 700 hits. One of those two methods was a complete waste of missiles

[Scandinavian]

You're assuming that your enemy has infinite AMMs. In a missile fight one of your considerations is going to be magazine depth. So AMMs don't kill X missiles per wave. They kill Y missiles total over the course of the engagement.

Unless you have such overwhelming weight of fire that it doesn't actually matter which mode you use.

Specifically, in the example you use the AMM launchers have 100 missiles per launcher, or about 1:5 launcher:magazine size. Using the same space at a 2:1 ratio you get 10 missiles per AMM launcher but 4x as many launchers. With that kind of tonnage you can also afford better fire controls and sensors than you specced your hypothetical ships with, meaning you can get 7 or 8 launches on the incoming alpha strike, not just 5.

Suddenly your alpha strike is looking down losing 280-320 missiles to AMMs and 12 to beam PD, for a total of 500-550 hits. While the magazined launchers lose 400 missiles total to AMMs, and at most 240 to beam PD, leaving you still with 560 hits.

Your example hinges on the alpha strike impacting with 95 % of the defender's AMMs still in their magazines. Since AMMs are specifically a counter to alpha strikes, this seems like a difficult design decision to justify (and not one that I believe you will find many defenders employing).

[Andrew]

AMM's kill X missiles per wave until they run out I agree. Firing all your AMM's against 1 large salvo has never been possible for me as there just is not enough time to fire them all so they are less effective against one wave than against multiple waves. I plan on my enemies dying with AMM;s in their magazines when I bother with missiles.

Personally I would consider insufficient AMM salvo's to outlast multi-launcher offensives to be pointless.  Those were random numbers I rarely operate fleets which can't stop a lot more missiles than that with PD and never put AMM's on ships at all as I have found them to be uneconomic and instead prefere more beam PD , I have never been even slightly threatened by ASM launches except from my own built salvo ships. Massed size 1 missiles can have a similar effect.

I have never seem a standard missile launcher attack threaten one of my fleets even from the most advanced spoiler fleets in large numbers. Where as 2/3 of the missiles my defenses have slaughtered for no effect in a single salvo would at be much more likely to get some hits