2.2 AMM theorycrafting

[Ulzgoroth (OP)]

I think the way the possibilities for AMMs have changed may be a big driver in new missile regimes. So I want to break down those options.

The Traditional
Single warhead, no fancy features. Can take advantage of fractional warheads to eke out a little more performance than before, but likely to lose a lot of accuracy from not having agility. I expect these to be obsolete except maybe at low tech levels. But they will have the best raw stats in a way since they aren't spending on anything else.

Flak
Multiple warhead, otherwise traditional. My guess is this will be the standard against which more exotic options are measured. With multiple warheads it's conceivable to use more than 1 MSP on these, but probably not useful unless you're concerned with extending their range through fuel efficiency.

Smart
Shelling out for Active Terminal Guidance. At high tech levels, this likely benefits even 1 MSP AMMs and almost certainly benefits any larger ones. Check how the fraction of engine size it eats up compares to the accuracy multiplier.

(ECCM I'm not sure about. Antimissile ECCM is radically different from anti-ship ECCM: it's worthless unless the ECCM is superior to the missile's ECM tech, while for ships it's the other way around. There are definitely scenarios where it would pay off but I suspect they're rare.)

Excessively Smart
Put retargeting on an AMM. At a full half MSP, this is an enormous sacrifice of space, especially if you're trying for a 1 MSP weapon. On the other hand, if you can outrun the target even a little bit (and intercept more than about a minute from impact), you get one hit for one shot, and have no need for any of the other enhancements. Unlike ASMs, a retargeting AMM doesn't risk repeated passes through point defense fire! These missiles are the ones I want to dig into, because they're probably not always the answer but they do do a lot to constrain the viable ASM space. A simple offensive cruise missile is at risk of a disastrous 1:1 exchange rate.

One way to survive excessively smart AMMs is decoys. Note, the math here is surprisingly harsh to the decoys - A missile with N decoys has an expected hits to kill of N/2+1 (assuming no ECCM). That means you're using a full MSP of decoys per excessively smart AMM!

The other counter is to be too fast for them. A 1 MSP AMM with retargeting is going to lose a lot of performance. A larger AMM does better there but bleeds against decoys. OTOH outracing an AMM is tricky for a long-range offensive missile, since they need to carry fuel or limit engine boost to achieve standoff range. This might be a big advantage for staged missiles. (And short-range torpedoes.)

[prophetical]

I suspect you are right. It has made designing AMMs at the tech levels I usually play at interesting, to say the least. I do wonder if there is a reason for small active sensors on missiles anymore if you are using ATG. Doesn't seem like it.

[Ulzgoroth (OP)]

I suspect you are right. It has made designing AMMs at the tech levels I usually play at interesting, to say the least. I do wonder if there is a reason for small active sensors on missiles anymore if you are using ATG. Doesn't seem like it.

Does ATG actually include any of the functionality of on-board sensors? I had been reading the sensor part as flavor text for a simple accuracy modifier.

[Steve Walmsley]

I suspect you are right. It has made designing AMMs at the tech levels I usually play at interesting, to say the least. I do wonder if there is a reason for small active sensors on missiles anymore if you are using ATG. Doesn't seem like it.

Does ATG actually include any of the functionality of on-board sensors? I had been reading the sensor part as flavor text for a simple accuracy modifier.

ATG functions only as a boost to accuracy. It has no detection capability.

[Nori]

I was playing around with this yesterday a bit. I'm at pretty low tech levels right now but a few thoughts I had..

I think it's very possible and maybe even good to consider a 1.5-2MSP AMM now. Previously there was no point, but retargeting with ATG.. You can make very effective AMMs. For the low tech I'm at now I will probably do a slightly larger missile and just plan to have a few less. Might end up being more resource-efficient too. Gonna be *fun* to test out!

[Ulzgoroth (OP)]

I was playing around with this yesterday a bit. I'm at pretty low tech levels right now but a few thoughts I had..

I think it's very possible and maybe even good to consider a 1.5-2MSP AMM now. Previously there was no point, but retargeting with ATG.. You can make very effective AMMs. For the low tech I'm at now I will probably do a slightly larger missile and just plan to have a few less. Might end up being more resource-efficient too. Gonna be *fun* to test out!

My theory has been that there's no reason to stack retarget capability with other upgrades (except conceivably ECCM) on an AMM. Once you've got retarget, you don't need an especially good hit chance - just enough speed to keep retrying the attack until it sticks, even if only at 11% or so.

[xenoscepter]

I was playing around with this yesterday a bit. I'm at pretty low tech levels right now but a few thoughts I had..

I think it's very possible and maybe even good to consider a 1.5-2MSP AMM now. Previously there was no point, but retargeting with ATG.. You can make very effective AMMs. For the low tech I'm at now I will probably do a slightly larger missile and just plan to have a few less. Might end up being more resource-efficient too. Gonna be *fun* to test out!

My theory has been that there's no reason to stack retarget capability with other upgrades (except conceivably ECCM) on an AMM. Once you've got retarget, you don't need an especially good hit chance - just enough speed to keep retrying the attack until it sticks, even if only at 11% or so.

 --- Well, at 10% CtH you're looking at like 30~50 seconds TTK... It's very possible that low-accuracy AMMs won't hit the enemy ASM before the ASM finds it's mark.

[Ulzgoroth (OP)]

I was playing around with this yesterday a bit. I'm at pretty low tech levels right now but a few thoughts I had..

I think it's very possible and maybe even good to consider a 1.5-2MSP AMM now. Previously there was no point, but retargeting with ATG.. You can make very effective AMMs. For the low tech I'm at now I will probably do a slightly larger missile and just plan to have a few less. Might end up being more resource-efficient too. Gonna be *fun* to test out!

My theory has been that there's no reason to stack retarget capability with other upgrades (except conceivably ECCM) on an AMM. Once you've got retarget, you don't need an especially good hit chance - just enough speed to keep retrying the attack until it sticks, even if only at 11% or so.

 --- Well, at 10% CtH you're looking at like 30~50 seconds TTK... It's very possible that low-accuracy AMMs won't hit the enemy ASM before the ASM finds it's mark.

That's something you do need to consider, but I don't think the numbers work out in favor of solving it with ATG.


The cheap argument I just thought of: ATG pays 0.25 MSP for at most 1.9x chance to hit. A second AMM warhead very probably weighs less for similar effect. With later tech you could dependably get two extra warheads in.


More mathy analysis of specifically using ATG with RT: the best case for adding even more overhead is clearly the larges AMM imaginable. For me at least I'd put that at 2 MSP, though there might be room to argue that for some scenarios! But once you take out the space for ATG and RT, that only leaves 1.25 (assuming negligible required warhead space). That means (A) that trading ATG for propulsion is worth >20% increase in speed and thus hit chance, so you need a decent ATG tech to bother. Also, it means the lowest accuracy for the non-ATG missile for you to be able to add ATG withotu breaking it is 12%, not 10%.

Overall that does seem like it might be justified sometimes for well-developed ATG tech, at least if you disregard the multi-head option.

[nuclearslurpee]

I think the trick with ATG-AMMs is that you need to have the first intercept be far enough out that the AMMs get several interception chances. There are several ways to accomplish this, but one I am thinking of is using fighters, FACs, or other smaller ships to screen in front of the main fleet and launch AMMs as the enemy ASM wave(s) passes. Otherwise though, the tactics are not that different from what we already have to do when fighting against box launchers.

[xenoscepter]

That's something you do need to consider, but I don't think the numbers work out in favor of solving it with ATG.


The cheap argument I just thought of: ATG pays 0.25 MSP for at most 1.9x chance to hit. A second AMM warhead very probably weighs less for similar effect. With later tech you could dependably get two extra warheads in.


More mathy analysis of specifically using ATG with RT: the best case for adding even more overhead is clearly the larges AMM imaginable. For me at least I'd put that at 2 MSP, though there might be room to argue that for some scenarios! But once you take out the space for ATG and RT, that only leaves 1.25 (assuming negligible required warhead space). That means (A) that trading ATG for propulsion is worth >20% increase in speed and thus hit chance, so you need a decent ATG tech to bother. Also, it means the lowest accuracy for the non-ATG missile for you to be able to add ATG withotu breaking it is 12%, not 10%.

Overall that does seem like it might be justified sometimes for well-developed ATG tech, at least if you disregard the multi-head option.

 --- The thing is, accuracy is tied to speed. ATG is accuracy NOT tied to speed. And that is honestly kind of a huge deal here. Because you no longer need to be as fast to hit it, only fast enough to chase it down. So for larger AMMs, you may well want ATG with RT.

 --- So, enemy ASM moving 10,000kms because multiples of 10 are not p a i n to work with. My AMM is moving 11,000kms. I have a 1% chance to hit... not great. HOWEVER! With even a 10% ATG I know have 11% chance to hit! If I get my AMM on target with 50s to spare, I'd have a theoretical 110% chance to hit. And that's with a laughably slow missile and bargain bin ATG.

 --- Oh, and RT too of course.

[Elouda]

ATG chance to hit modifier appears to be multiplicative, not additive like you are describing.

That means your 1% chance to hit becomes 1.1%, not 11%.

Thats in line with how Steve described it in mechanics post, and what I personally expected behaviour wise.

You need a slightly larger AMM to use it well.

[Ulzgoroth (OP)]

That's something you do need to consider, but I don't think the numbers work out in favor of solving it with ATG.


The cheap argument I just thought of: ATG pays 0.25 MSP for at most 1.9x chance to hit. A second AMM warhead very probably weighs less for similar effect. With later tech you could dependably get two extra warheads in.


More mathy analysis of specifically using ATG with RT: the best case for adding even more overhead is clearly the larges AMM imaginable. For me at least I'd put that at 2 MSP, though there might be room to argue that for some scenarios! But once you take out the space for ATG and RT, that only leaves 1.25 (assuming negligible required warhead space). That means (A) that trading ATG for propulsion is worth >20% increase in speed and thus hit chance, so you need a decent ATG tech to bother. Also, it means the lowest accuracy for the non-ATG missile for you to be able to add ATG withotu breaking it is 12%, not 10%.

Overall that does seem like it might be justified sometimes for well-developed ATG tech, at least if you disregard the multi-head option.

 --- The thing is, accuracy is tied to speed. ATG is accuracy NOT tied to speed. And that is honestly kind of a huge deal here. Because you no longer need to be as fast to hit it, only fast enough to chase it down. So for larger AMMs, you may well want ATG with RT.

 --- So, enemy ASM moving 10,000kms because multiples of 10 are not p a i n to work with. My AMM is moving 11,000kms. I have a 1% chance to hit... not great. HOWEVER! With even a 10% ATG I know have 11% chance to hit! If I get my AMM on target with 50s to spare, I'd have a theoretical 110% chance to hit. And that's with a laughably slow missile and bargain bin ATG.

 --- Oh, and RT too of course.

As Elouda says, it's very specifically a multiplicative to-hit boost, not an additive one, but in addition the percent chance for a missile to hit is ten times the speed ratio, not equal to the speed ratio. So your barely-outspeeding missile has 11% chance to hit already, and that goes up to 12.1% with the benefit of ATG. Considering the small missiles size, trading the 0.25 points of ATG for more propulsion would definitely give more benefit. at that tech level.

[prophetical]

That's something you do need to consider, but I don't think the numbers work out in favor of solving it with ATG.


The cheap argument I just thought of: ATG pays 0.25 MSP for at most 1.9x chance to hit. A second AMM warhead very probably weighs less for similar effect. With later tech you could dependably get two extra warheads in.


More mathy analysis of specifically using ATG with RT: the best case for adding even more overhead is clearly the larges AMM imaginable. For me at least I'd put that at 2 MSP, though there might be room to argue that for some scenarios! But once you take out the space for ATG and RT, that only leaves 1.25 (assuming negligible required warhead space). That means (A) that trading ATG for propulsion is worth >20% increase in speed and thus hit chance, so you need a decent ATG tech to bother. Also, it means the lowest accuracy for the non-ATG missile for you to be able to add ATG withotu breaking it is 12%, not 10%.

Overall that does seem like it might be justified sometimes for well-developed ATG tech, at least if you disregard the multi-head option.

 --- The thing is, accuracy is tied to speed. ATG is accuracy NOT tied to speed. And that is honestly kind of a huge deal here. Because you no longer need to be as fast to hit it, only fast enough to chase it down. So for larger AMMs, you may well want ATG with RT.

 --- So, enemy ASM moving 10,000kms because multiples of 10 are not p a i n to work with. My AMM is moving 11,000kms. I have a 1% chance to hit... not great. HOWEVER! With even a 10% ATG I know have 11% chance to hit! If I get my AMM on target with 50s to spare, I'd have a theoretical 110% chance to hit. And that's with a laughably slow missile and bargain bin ATG.

 --- Oh, and RT too of course.

As Elouda says, it's very specifically a multiplicative to-hit boost, not an additive one, but in addition the percent chance for a missile to hit is ten times the speed ratio, not equal to the speed ratio. So your barely-outspeeding missile has 11% chance to hit already, and that goes up to 12.1% with the benefit of ATG. Considering the small missiles size, trading the 0.25 points of ATG for more propulsion would definitely give more benefit. at that tech level.

In thinking more about this, I think ATG is actually the only choice for higher tier AMMs. Once you start to hit a point where missile speeds get into 6 digits and the relative differences in speed are going to keep you close to a 1 speed ratio (or 10% chance to hit), the chance of having a high hit rate on a missile, if I am understanding the formula correctly, are pretty low. Depending on what Retargeting thinks is a "low chance to hit", you may end up with your AMMs fully ignoring all of the missiles you send them against.

[Ulzgoroth (OP)]

In thinking more about this, I think ATG is actually the only choice for higher tier AMMs. Once you start to hit a point where missile speeds get into 6 digits and the relative differences in speed are going to keep you close to a 1 speed ratio (or 10% chance to hit), the chance of having a high hit rate on a missile, if I am understanding the formula correctly, are pretty low. Depending on what Retargeting thinks is a "low chance to hit", you may end up with your AMMs fully ignoring all of the missiles you send them against.

I don't think there's anything about high technology that would cause missile speeds to flatten out between AMM and ASM? I could imagine something about all missiles using the same highest possible engine boost and a high engine to fuel ratio so there's no room to buy much more speed, but does that really happen?

I think you're misunderstanding what retargeting means, too. It's not going to not make attack rolls. It just won't blow itself up if it fails the attack rolls.

[nuclearslurpee]

I don't think there's anything about high technology that would cause missile speeds to flatten out between AMM and ASM? I could imagine something about all missiles using the same highest possible engine boost and a high engine to fuel ratio so there's no room to buy much more speed, but does that really happen?

In practice, before 2.2 AMMs were nominally about twice the speed of ASMs. This was due to the fact that ASMs need much longer range than AMMs, which demands both a lower boost multiplier and a heavier fuel load, as well as the fact that AMMs of course have much lighter warheads. This translates to ~20% base accuracy against ASMs in the current mechanics, before adding ATG, RT, etc.

I think you're misunderstanding what retargeting means, too. It's not going to not make attack rolls. It just won't blow itself up if it fails the attack rolls.

This was my understanding as well. If you can set up a situation where each AMM can guarantee several attempts to intercept the target ASM, then retargeting will become the strongest option at some crossover point depending on AMM size, compared to ATG and "bare" AMMs.