Missile Engine Design

[Bandus (OP)]

Another question for the wise fleet commanders among you! I have been reading over this link here regarding smaller missile ships.  My confusion about this design is that the missiles appear to be size 1.  However, I can't seem to figure a way to design a missile engine that will give the speed those missiles are achieving, while keeping it at size 1.  For that matter, even if I use values less than 1 for engines, warhead, fuel capacity, etc.  it still tends to hover around 1. 5 size and even at that point the missile seems like it would do almost nothing to an opponent. 

So with that said, I am hoping people will share some missile engine designs, missile designs, and missile launcher designs to help me understand what would be useful for a 2nd generation missile cruiser, while keeping in mind I think I prefer longer range engagements.  Thank you all!

[Falcon]

Have you researched increased engine power/decreased fuel efficiency? You can use it for your missiles giving them some well needed extra speed.

[Charlie Beeler]

Bandus,  with less than 10 posts you can't post a link.  What is the topic name your trying to reference?

Also what power/propulsion techs have you researched?

[Bandus (OP)]

The link I was attempting to post is entitled "Missile-armed Escorts" and is on the Aurora wikipedia.   The reference is to the Tribal III class Escort Cruiser on that page. 

As far as R&D goes, I have researched the following that I believe are relevant to my question:

Implosion Fission Warhead Strength
Missile Agility 32 per MSP
Missile Launcher Reload Rate 2
Reduced-size Launcher 0.  75/2x Reload
Fuel Consumption: 0.  7 liters per EPH
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors
Ion Engines
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x 1.  75
Minimum Engine Power Modified x 0.  3

If any more information is needed, please let me know.   Thank you for trying to help!

Edit:Also, I read here that the ship needs magazines to store the missiles which seems logical.  However, on the design screen I don't seem to see a magazine component to add nor do I see any available research paths which would seem to lead to the creation of that component.

[Falcon]

The wiki is out of date.  The whole engine/efficiency system has been changed, so any numbers you find there are likely to be wrong.

[metalax]

Magazines are a component that you need to design. There are two tech-lines in the missiles & kinetic weapons tech-tree that apply to them "magazine feed efficiency" and "magazine ejection chance". Your armour tech also applies if you want to increase the HTK of the magazine.

[Bandus (OP)]

Sure enough.  I had completely overlooked the magazine research project type.   Thank you.   I'm still interested in hearing people's suggestions for missile engine and missile designs though.  Just looking for a basic missile that is deemed reasonable for a second generation missile cruiser.  Thanks again everyone!

[Nathan_]

You just want a size 1 amm given that tech?
Heres a str 1 warhead 5M km range 21k km/s speed interceptor maximized for to-hit:

Code: [Select]

Warhead:0.34
Engine:0.500 (3.5 power mod)
Fuel:0.011
Agility:0.149
1000 km/s Target: 310.303860
3000 km/s Target: 103.434620
5000 km/s Target: 62.060772
10000 km/s Target: 31.030386
30000 km/s Target: 10.343462
50000 km/s Target: 6.206077

you can probably take a bit away from the warhead, I'm being conservative just in case since I don't have the specifics that aurora uses on hand, though I'm sure its 4 decimal places. If you want faster you need better tech for either more powerful engines, or smaller other components. the warhead tech in particular hurts.

The missile that you want though, depends on your mission role. What range do you want? how much payload do you think you can carry? what speed is acceptable? what kind of opposition will this missile face?

For example, I've started fielding mirvs to crack a particularly final point defense heavy opponent. not seeing my premium ship killer missiles frittered away to point defense fire is awesome.

[Charlie Beeler]

He is correct that missile components can go to 4 decimal precision, with the exception of engines which are now restricted to 1 decimal precision.

You have some tech that is hurting you. 

Your warhead tech is really eating into the available msp for a size 1 missile.  With the new engine designs being limited to single decimal this needs to be at least "Fusion-boosted Fission Warhead: Strength: 5 x MSP" which let's you have a .2msp 1pt warhead.  This leads to being able to use a .7msp engine and still have .1msp for agility and fuel.

For defensive launchers stay away from reduced size tech, with the exception of box launchers in some applications.  Your defense launchers need the maximum ROF you can get.  Your missile reload tech is also hurting you in this.  Jump this to "reload rate 3" and you have a 10second cycle for size 1 missiles.  (rate 6 gets you the highest rate for size 1 of 5 seconds)

The spec's that Nathan posted will work, but in my opinion leave something on the table.  It's nothing dramatic, just a difference in approach. 

To modify his spec's to my approach it would look like this:
Warhead: .3334msp for 1pt
Engine stays the same: .5msp/X3.5 modifier for 1.05 propulsion pts
Agility: .1409msp for 5pts of agility giving a maneuver rating of 15
Fuel: .0257msp giving 64.25liters of fuel for a range of 11,966,509km

The agility is lower because of how the program handles rounding.  I've detailed this in a different thread.http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5444.msg56064.html#msg56064

Personally I'd change to:
Warhead stays the same
Engine: .6msp for 1.26 propulsion pts giving a missile speed of 25,200kps
Agility : .047msp for 2pts of agility giving a maneuver rating of 12
Fuel: .0196msp for 49liters of fuel for a range of 10,336,445km

The hit chances of my suggestion are a little worse:

1000 km/s Target: 302.4%
3000 km/s Target: 100.8%
5000 km/s Target: 60.5%
10000 km/s Target: 30.2%
30000 km/s Target: 10.1%
50000 km/s Target: 6.0%

This is driven by my preference for the fastest practical speed in my defensive missile.  Your mileage may very.

[Bandus (OP)]

This is some great info, and I appreciate it.  Thank you all!

@Charlie Beeler - I'd like to hear your insight on a basic offensive missile as well, assuming I made the tech upgrades you suggested.  Since the first warships I designed were a bust, I've no warships at all at this point and really think its past time that I field an effective warship.  Thanks again!

[Nathan_]

Faster missiles do have the advantage that they'll always be able to run down their target, so that is definitely a consideration. an AMM wave that doesn't make the intercept with a faster missile doesn't get a second chance. The extra range won't be that useful except in specific circumstances, still its nice to have. And again, there really isn't a basic missile, you have to decide what you want. There are best warheads though, anything thats a square number will penetrate extra layers of armor, so strength 1,4,9,16 and so on warheads are better than others.

[Charlie Beeler]

@Nathan 
The longer range of my approach isn't by intent, but more of a function of the reduced precision of the missile engine size.  If we still had 4 decimal precision I'd have much short ranged AMM's with slightly faster speeds.

@Bandus 

As Nathan points out, offensive missiles have much greater variability.  That being said I do have some rough guidelines for starting designs. 

• ASM size matching launcher reload rate for a 30sec cycle
• Warhead around 20%-25% of available msp
• Balance engine and fuel function well with active sensors/missile fire control

These are just starting points but do form a solid foundation for further refinement to personal preference in agility, armor, ECM, onboard sensors.

This last one is more difficult than it sounds.  If requires a lot of outside the game program work.  Personally I've developed a workbook with worksheets for sensor/fire control design based on available tech and then that drives the range parameters for missile design.  With the latest changes to engine design my worksheet for missiles is still in a state of flux with way to much manual manipulation of formulas.

There is one thing I see most people repeating when they post ship and missile designs.  That is 1:1 matching missile range with MFC and active sensors.  This in my opinion is a mistake, and it is one I used to recommend.  The mistake is that means that against ships in a meeting engagement you are giving up a significant amount of the missiles range.  With some simple math you can determine at what range you need to detect/target a ship at a given speed to have initial intercept near the maximum range of the missile.  this is what I use for determining the spec's for active sensors and MFC's.  If I don't know what speeds I'll be facing I use my own (or what I think the next engine tech will provide) to guide the spec's. 

On the flipside if you're in a stern chase of an NPR ship the range is actually much lower.  It's is still a fairly simple bit of math to determine what that engagement range is.