Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: December 21, 2023, 12:11:23 AM »

Quote from: captainwolfer on December 20, 2023, 11:08:57 PM
Quote from: Ulzgoroth on December 20, 2023, 10:52:06 PM
I think the conclusion may be overreaching - if you were fighting from a superior tech base, your higher hit chance would have been more favorable to the alternatives.

But seems like a great demonstration that the concept works!
Basically, I don't see how multiple warheads could compete with re-targeting except maybe at much higher tech levels, since any more than 4 extra warheads (5 total) would be larger than a single retargeting module. Even if the missiles had been moving twice as fast, that still would have given at least 7 attempts for the retargeting, vs 5 attempts on a multiple warhead bus. And that ignores the fact that higher tech means the missiles can be targeted from further away, due to better sensor tech.

Terminal guidance, even at 90% increased hit chance, is basically just "twice as many hits". Way worse than using 0.5 space for much more than 2 chances to hit

ECCM only matters if you can actually hit the missile. And you need to have a tech advantage over the enemy
Multiple warheads can generate more than one hit, which matters against enemies with decoys. Terminal guidance I'm more doubtful of, but it can stack with multiple warheads in a way retargeting doesn't.

ECCM, yeah, only would consider that in very contingent circumstances.
Posted by: captainwolfer
« on: December 20, 2023, 11:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on December 20, 2023, 10:52:06 PM
I think the conclusion may be overreaching - if you were fighting from a superior tech base, your higher hit chance would have been more favorable to the alternatives.

But seems like a great demonstration that the concept works!
Basically, I don't see how multiple warheads could compete with re-targeting except maybe at much higher tech levels, since any more than 4 extra warheads (5 total) would be larger than a single retargeting module. Even if the missiles had been moving twice as fast, that still would have given at least 7 attempts for the retargeting, vs 5 attempts on a multiple warhead bus. And that ignores the fact that higher tech means the missiles can be targeted from further away, due to better sensor tech.

Terminal guidance, even at 90% increased hit chance, is basically just "twice as many hits". Way worse than using 0.5 space for much more than 2 chances to hit

ECCM only matters if you can actually hit the missile. And you need to have a tech advantage over the enemy
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: December 20, 2023, 10:52:06 PM »

I think the conclusion may be overreaching - if you were fighting from a superior tech base, your higher hit chance would have been more favorable to the alternatives.

But seems like a great demonstration that the concept works!
Posted by: captainwolfer
« on: December 20, 2023, 09:53:58 PM »

So, the results of a practical test I just did. Note that the incoming missiles were from an NPR, and were 30,000 km/s size 9 missiles with 2 decoys each (I think). Also the incoming missiles were magneto-plasma to my ion engines, so my AMMs barely had a speed advantage. I only counted the number of missiles hit, I ignored decoy hits. My ships moved away from the incoming missiles at 6,250 km/s.

Missile fire control: 2.89 million km range vs size 10 missiles, fire 3 AMMs per incoming enemy missile.

Multiple Warhead AMM: 55 enemy missiles destroyed, 640 AMMs expended.
Retargeting AMMs: 172 enemy missiles destroyed, 640 AMMs expended.

AMM Designs:
Code: [Select]
Multi-Warhead AMM
Missile Size: 2.000 MSP  (5.0000 Tons)     Warhead: 1.500 (MW-3)    Radiation Damage: 1.500
Speed: 34,200 km/s     Fuel: 137     Flight Time: 106.6 seconds     Range: 3,645,720 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.285     Development Cost: 239
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 342%   3k km/s 114%   5k km/s 68.4%   10k km/s 34.2%
Code: [Select]
Retargeting AMM
Missile Size: 2.000 MSP  (5.0000 Tons)     Warhead: 0.500    Radiation Damage: 0.500
Speed: 33,000 km/s     Fuel: 137     Flight Time: 108.4 seconds     Range: 3,577,200 km
Retarget Capable
Cost Per Missile: 2.275     Development Cost: 238
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 330%   3k km/s 110%   5k km/s 66%   10k km/s 33%
I didn't even bother with trying ECCM or terminal guidance, because neither provide nearly as much as an advantage to an AMM as retargeting or multiple warhead.

Ultimately, Retargeting is clearly the best option, because it gives the AMM way more tries.
The AMMs are first fired at a distance of 2.8 million km. It take about 45 seconds for the AMMs to intercept at a range of about 1.8 million km. It then takes the enemy missiles 70 seconds to travel to 80k km from my ships, which was where I ended the tests. Thus, each AMM has a maximum of 14 tries to intercept a missile (first AMMs travel 1.485 million km to first intercept, and wont run out of fuel before the enemy missiles hit), although the number of possible attempts decreases as the missiles get closer.

In comparison, the Multi-target AMM effectively only gets 3 attempts per missile, 1 for each warhead. Every warhead I add needs 0.225 MSP of space in the missile (0.125 of warhead, 0.1 of multi-target bus), so I can only have a total of 3 warheads before the multi-target uses up more space than the retargeting module does. Yes, I could use smaller warheads against size 9 missiles, but a difference of .0125 per warhead basically doesn't matter, and going any smaller means introducing a risk of not destroying the missile when you do hit.

In conclusion, the only case you wouldn't use retargeting AMMs is if it is absolutely impossible to match the speed of the enemy missiles.
Posted by: Snoman314
« on: December 10, 2023, 02:41:59 AM »

Quote from: Droll on December 09, 2023, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Elouda on December 09, 2023, 02:30:02 PM
Quote from: Droll on December 09, 2023, 02:16:33 PM
This is an aside but I just thought of something really stupid: Would laser warhead AMMs be able to ignore missile decoys regardless of ECM/ECCM tech?
Why would they? Same logic as a non-laser one applies, the laser might shoot at the real missile or the decoy.

I guess I'm just searching for a justification to using laser warhead AMMs, as right now it just seems like a bad idea.

Yeah they definitely seem to be intended as an ASM warhead type, for penetrating point defences.
Posted by: Droll
« on: December 09, 2023, 02:37:58 PM »

Quote from: Elouda on December 09, 2023, 02:30:02 PM
Quote from: Droll on December 09, 2023, 02:16:33 PM
This is an aside but I just thought of something really stupid: Would laser warhead AMMs be able to ignore missile decoys regardless of ECM/ECCM tech?
Why would they? Same logic as a non-laser one applies, the laser might shoot at the real missile or the decoy.

I guess I'm just searching for a justification to using laser warhead AMMs, as right now it just seems like a bad idea.
Posted by: Elouda
« on: December 09, 2023, 02:30:02 PM »

Quote from: Droll on December 09, 2023, 02:16:33 PM
This is an aside but I just thought of something really stupid: Would laser warhead AMMs be able to ignore missile decoys regardless of ECM/ECCM tech?
Why would they? Same logic as a non-laser one applies, the laser might shoot at the real missile or the decoy.
Posted by: Droll
« on: December 09, 2023, 02:16:33 PM »

This is an aside but I just thought of something really stupid: Would laser warhead AMMs be able to ignore missile decoys regardless of ECM/ECCM tech?
Posted by: Nori
« on: December 09, 2023, 01:25:33 PM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on December 08, 2023, 07:49:37 PM
Quote from: Nori on December 08, 2023, 06:11:18 PM
Yeah it was terrible vs the ships, I mean it hit a lot but yeah. haha. More of a, well I'm running out of ASMs so lets try these.
I mean ineffective as in incapable of doing any damage. You don't need a 1-point warhead to kill missiles anymore, so AMMs usually would be better off with a smaller one especially if going for multiple warheads. But a less than 1 point warhead cannot damage ship armor or internals.
Quote from: Nori on December 08, 2023, 06:11:18 PM
It's tough to say from the log about multiple warheads, but it appears to perform well and the RT gives it extra chances to hit. I read warheads as being useful because of decoys more than anything.
If your underlying hit chance is high enough for you to generate multiple hits per AMM with any frequency, it's high enough that I'd almost certainly remove RT in favor of something else.
This convo has been good.. I forgot about how fractional warheads work. I had mine at 0.5 each and that's big enough for a 100% kill on a MSP10. I have changed it to 3wh at 0.3. Also I didn't realize fractional doesn't damage ship armor, so that's good to know.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: December 09, 2023, 12:33:16 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 08, 2023, 06:54:03 PM
I would say that terminal targeting guidance technology is a really bad investment of research point full stop, that technology is not very good until very high up the tech tree. It probably should start at around 50% and end at 100% or something to be an interesting technology at all. It is of dubious use for AMM missile in almost all cases and will be at lest useful for ASM missiles if it started at 50% rather than 10%. Even at 50% the increase is not really drastic for most ASM either.

 --- If it was a flat increase, it would be very worthwhile indeed.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: December 08, 2023, 07:49:37 PM »

Quote from: Nori on December 08, 2023, 06:11:18 PM
Yeah it was terrible vs the ships, I mean it hit a lot but yeah. haha. More of a, well I'm running out of ASMs so lets try these.
I mean ineffective as in incapable of doing any damage. You don't need a 1-point warhead to kill missiles anymore, so AMMs usually would be better off with a smaller one especially if going for multiple warheads. But a less than 1 point warhead cannot damage ship armor or internals.
Quote from: Nori on December 08, 2023, 06:11:18 PM
It's tough to say from the log about multiple warheads, but it appears to perform well and the RT gives it extra chances to hit. I read warheads as being useful because of decoys more than anything.
If your underlying hit chance is high enough for you to generate multiple hits per AMM with any frequency, it's high enough that I'd almost certainly remove RT in favor of something else.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 08, 2023, 06:54:03 PM »

I would say that terminal targeting guidance technology is a really bad investment of research point full stop, that technology is not very good until very high up the tech tree. It probably should start at around 50% and end at 100% or something to be an interesting technology at all. It is of dubious use for AMM missile in almost all cases and will be at lest useful for ASM missiles if it started at 50% rather than 10%. Even at 50% the increase is not really drastic for most ASM either.
Posted by: Nori
« on: December 08, 2023, 06:11:18 PM »

Yeah it was terrible vs the ships, I mean it hit a lot but yeah. haha. More of a, well I'm running out of ASMs so lets try these.

It's tough to say from the log about multiple warheads, but it appears to perform well and the RT gives it extra chances to hit. I read warheads as being useful because of decoys more than anything.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: December 08, 2023, 04:55:37 PM »

Quote from: Nori on December 08, 2023, 04:12:24 PM
I haven't had to defend against missiles yet, but I've used my AMMs to shoot at laser protected ships. I'm using MSP2 missiles with RT, large engines and two warheads. I can fire out to near 4m so the idea is to give the RT a lot of time to destroy the missiles.

We'll see how it goes, but I'm not keen on ATG as of yet. I think RT is a no brainer and multiple warheads makes a lot of sense. That really doesn't leave a lot of room for ATG unless you start pushing into over 2 MSP... I'm at about MPD engine level tech.
I continue to have big doubts about combining RT with multiple warheads, since the value of RT only appears when it misses. Each is good, but I'm dubious that they're good together.


Also unless your enemies are actually using 20+ MSP missiles, I would probably not design an AMM with enough warhead to be effective against ships.
Posted by: Nori
« on: December 08, 2023, 04:12:24 PM »

I haven't had to defend against missiles yet, but I've used my AMMs to shoot at laser protected ships. I'm using MSP2 missiles with RT, large engines and two warheads. I can fire out to near 4m so the idea is to give the RT a lot of time to destroy the missiles.

We'll see how it goes, but I'm not keen on ATG as of yet. I think RT is a no brainer and multiple warheads makes a lot of sense. That really doesn't leave a lot of room for ATG unless you start pushing into over 2 MSP... I'm at about MPD engine level tech.