Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Bureau of Ship Design => Topic started by: Detros on June 22, 2017, 06:02:16 AM
-
Well, I figured I will try dipping my toes properly in the missiles after all. So how does my first PD missile ship look to you?
Thanks to those magazines it has 50 % more of HTK and one more layer of armour than my laser destroyers so that's why I set it as AD type.
Huracan class Armoured Destroyer 7,500 tons 150 Crew 1310.04 BP TCS 150 TH 691 EM 180
4606 km/s Armour 6-34 Shields 6-300 Sensors 11/11/0/0 Damage Control Rating 5 PPV 10
Maint Life 3.75 Years MSP 600 AFR 81% IFR 1.1% 1YR 67 5YR 999 Max Repair 155.52 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 15 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 500
Cameron-Sharp 345.6 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2) Power 345.6 Fuel Use 29.2% Signature 345.6 Exp 9%
Fuel Capacity 650,000 Litres Range 53.4 billion km (134 days at full power)
Rahman-Gould Epsilon R300/360 Shields (2) Total Fuel Cost 30 Litres per hour (720 per day)
Rhodes-Hobbs Size 1 Missile Launcher RR5 (10) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 5
Jordan-Ahmed Missile Fire Control FC6-R1 AAS21-110 (5) Range 6.9m km Resolution 1
Sonora Close AMM MSP1 CTH528-176-106-53 (300) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 0.8m Range: 1.2m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 176/105/52
Baranda Middle AMM MSP1 CTH528-176-106-53 (200) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 6.6m Range: 9.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 176/105/52
Jordan-Ahmed Active Search Sensor MR6-R1 AAS63-110 (1) GPS 63 Range 6.9m km MCR 755k km Resolution 1
Pugh-Green Thermal Sensor TH1-11 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11m km
Pugh-Green EM Detection Sensor EM1-11 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11m km
ECM 10
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 purposes
Btw, is "End" endurance in minutes? Weirdly in the Missile design screen it shows only rounded to full minutes.
-
Why do you have two kinds of missiles with the same speed and hit chances?
The Sonora has the same speed, warhead, size, and to-hit chances as the Baranda, but the Baranda has ~8x as much range.
Why not just carry 500 Barandas instead of 300 Sonoras?
Missiles seem kinda slow for MPD AMM's. Did you use your highest power boost?
-
Yes, currently maximum x3 engine, 0.5 MSP.
I am trying to play without Sorium harvesters. Baranda needs 8 times fuel than Sonora. I thought I can save this way as Barandas can go for big missiles at the max sensor range while Sonoras are for small missiles. Or if there are lots of missiles incoming I can start with Barandas and as enemy missiles get closer I switch to fuel-wise cheaper Sonoras. That were my thoughts.
Effective-wise they are the same and that was the best hit chances I managed to get after trying multiple engine sizes and tweaking agility. Thought I have found 34m of 0.9 Sorium recently so I will soon merge Sonora and Baranda designs into one with not so much fuel-saving in mind. Work on better missiles is ongoing but I was rather asking here about the ship itself.
-
I would exchange one or two fire controls for more launchers, currently you have 2/fc, but you will probably need more like five of your AMMs for every targeted ASM of the same tech level.
The ranges of your missiles are a lot longer than your detection capabilities against the usual missiles, but I guess having a few longer ranged ones for emergency use against ships is ok.
-
I would exchange one or two fire controls for more launchers, currently you have 2/fc, but you will probably need more like five of your AMMs for every targeted ASM of the same tech level.
The ranges of your missiles are a lot longer than your detection capabilities against the usual missiles, but I guess having a few longer ranged ones for emergency use against ships is ok.
10k km/s ASM = 52 % hit for one AMM
20k km/s ASM = 26 % hit for one AMM = 74 % miss for one AMM
0.74^4 = 0.299 = 30 % miss for 4 AMMs
0.74^5 = 0.222 = 22.2 % miss for 5 AMMs
If I am counting it right there is 30 % chance to miss when shooting at 20k km/s ASM with a flock of four Sonoras/Barandas of current level.
For 5 AMMs it goes down only to 22.2 %. Chmmm.
Yes, those AMMs need more work but first let's tweak the launcher ship. What about this?
Removed 2x shield and instead of 5-10 MFC/launchers used 4-16 ratio. HTK still at 99, with 4/6 magazines though 2/9 were possible too but 16 magazines seemed like too much for such big ship.
Huracan class Armoured Destroyer 7,500 tons 160 Crew 1284.2 BP TCS 150 TH 691 EM 0
4606 km/s Armour 6-34 Shields 0-0 Sensors 11/11/0/0 Damage Control Rating 5 PPV 16
Maint Life 3.77 Years MSP 589 AFR 81% IFR 1.1% 1YR 65 5YR 972 Max Repair 155.52 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 16 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 512
Cameron-Sharp 345.6 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2) Power 345.6 Fuel Use 29.2% Signature 345.6 Exp 9%
Fuel Capacity 615,000 Litres Range 50.5 billion km (126 days at full power)
Rhodes-Hobbs Size 1 Missile Launcher RR5 (16) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 5
Jordan-Ahmed Missile Fire Control FC6-R1 AAS21-110 (4) Range 6.9m km Resolution 1
Sonora Close AMM MSP1 CTH528-176-106-53 (352) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 0.8m Range: 1.2m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 176/105/52
Baranda Middle AMM MSP1 CTH528-176-106-53 (160) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 6.6m Range: 9.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 176/105/52
Jordan-Ahmed Active Search Sensor MR6-R1 AAS63-110 (1) GPS 63 Range 6.9m km MCR 755k km Resolution 1
Pugh-Green Thermal Sensor TH1-11 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11m km
Pugh-Green EM Detection Sensor EM1-11 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11m km
ECM 10
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 purposesI have just noted I forgot to shield these engines but as I have already managed to put them into several designs... meh, will fix next time.
-
Researched higher power boost, agility and warhead:
Sonora II Close AMM MSP1 CTH812-261-162-81 (352) Speed: 28,000 km/s End: 0.8m Range: 1.3m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 270/162/81With four of these assigned to one MFC I think I should get 0,595^4 = 12.5 % chance of complete miss when facing 20k kmps ASM.
-
Detros,
Everything looks ok but I'll mention two hings that jump out to me. First, you seem to have almost twice as much MSP as you need. Your max repair is 155 so I'd aim to have a little more than 310 MSP. I think that would roughly match your deployment time well too. So you can cut your engineering a little.
The other thing is that you are getting 10 launchers on a ship that is 7500 tons. This is a specialized ship and is focussed on delivering AAM missile support. It should have a lot more launchers. I usually aim to deploy my size 1 launchers in groups of three with a fc for each group. I'd ditch your shields, reduce your armor and look to get between 21 and 30 launchers on this ship.
Good luck
-
Detros,
Everything looks ok but I'll mention two hings that jump out to me. First, you seem to have almost twice as much MSP as you need. Your max repair is 155 so I'd aim to have a little more than 310 MSP. I think that would roughly match your deployment time well too. So you can cut your engineering a little.
The other thing is that you are getting 10 launchers on a ship that is 7500 tons. This is a specialized ship and is focussed on delivering AAM missile support. It should have a lot more launchers. I usually aim to deploy my size 1 launchers in groups of three with a fc for each group. I'd ditch your shields, reduce your armor and look to get between 21 and 30 launchers on this ship.
Good luck
Thanks. I noted the maintenance requirements are lower but I didn't want to go under 5 with Damage Control Rating. Damage Control component is currently a queued research.
The first version has 5 MFCs and 10 launchers, the second one has 4 MFCs and 16 launchers.
-
I'd probably go for longer range, sensors/FC being more important than the missiles themselves.
Twice the engagement envelope is almost as good as twice the number of launchers and fire controls.
-
Thanks. I noted the maintenance requirements are lower but I didn't want to go under 5 with Damage Control Rating. Damage Control component is currently a queued research.
The first version has 5 MFCs and 10 launchers, the second one has 4 MFCs and 16 launchers.
After I wrote my post I realized I was commenting on the wrong version, sorry. 16 is getting close to the right number but I'd put more on. 20 - 30 is better for a ship that size.
-
I am curious that you got to 5 second reload tech for AMMs which is a pretty huge investment, compared to your other missile and drive tech.
I am going to be a bit contrarian on the range, however. Until you get really high boost tech, I advise having AMM missiles the same range as your AMM sensors vs 50 ton objects. You really do not lose much accuracy that way, and they are useful anti-fighter/LAC missiles.
You have the option of making use of the full range against missiles if you have small AMM sensor ships that fly ahead of your fleet.
-
I am curious that you got to 5 second reload tech for AMMs which is a pretty huge investment, compared to your other missile and drive tech.
Well, I am ~42 years in from conventional start and I am churning research labs all the time. I currently have ~80 together, with power and logistic branches moved to colonies with anomalies so other branches can now use more labs of Earth.
For long years I also didn't have energy weapons scientist and my kinetic weapon one was the first to reach +60% bonus. With rank high enough for 35 labs those ~38000 research points per year can make quick progress on starting techs. Currently he is with ~12 labs working on 75k Gauss Cannon rate of fire 5.
I am only starting with missile ships but having 5s reload seemed to me like a basic requirement for AMM ship. I have met several enemies who liked to fire streams of AMMs just 5s apart.
-
Well, if you expect enemy ASMs to make 20kkm/s, then I guess your AMMs are fine. It's just that I have the following:
Admiral 2 ASM
Missile Size: 3 MSP (0.15 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 19800 km/s Engine Endurance: 128 minutes Range: 152.0m km
EM Sensor Strength: 0.0198 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 19 800 kmbuilt with a 330% boosted ion drive. If it had an magneto-plasma drive, it would make 26400 km/s and would thus be faster than your first generation AMMs, thats why I said they migth be too slow, as with bad luck with the increments, they might get jumped over by faster missiles and then never be able to catch up.
-
I'm impressed by folks' ability to build these lean warships instead of the expensive hefties that have been my first designs. (Though I'm not complaining too much; I did a lot of reading here [some of the advice coming from you, Detros] and at the wiki and built ships that perform exactly as I intended them and which proved extremely capable against a threat I didn't anticipate.)
As others have said, AMMs should probably be faster with magneto-plasma drive. I built my first missiles at internal fusion tech, but the slowest of those was a size-6 ASM with 100 million km range and a strength-12 warhead ... and it still clocked in at 33,700km/s, which you can probably match or exceed at magneto-plasma with a size-1, short-ranger.
-
As others have said, AMMs should probably be faster with magneto-plasma drive. I built my first missiles at internal fusion tech, but the slowest of those was a size-6 ASM with 100 million km range and a strength-12 warhead ... and it still clocked in at 33,700km/s, which you can probably match or exceed at magneto-plasma with a size-1, short-ranger.
I could get bit higher speed and hit chances if the AMM is made sub1 sized. But missiles need to be at least of size 1.
I could do this sub-sized trick for missiles intended for size 2 PDC AMM launchers which are 1.9414 missiles instead of pure size 2 ones. PDCs are twice as fast at reloading so with lev6 reloading tech you can have 5s reload on size 2 PDC launcher.
Here for the comparison all three missiles of generation 1:
Sonora Close AMM MSP1 CTH528-176-106-53 Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 0.8m Range: 1.2m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 176/105/52
Baranda Middle AMM MSP1 CTH528-176-106-53 Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 6.6m Range: 9.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 176/105/52
Thuria Middle AMM MSP1.9414 CTH667-216-133-67 Speed: 24,700 km/s End: 8m Range: 11.8m km WH: 1 Size: 1.9414 TH: 222/133/66
I have then managed to corrupt my save file with too much zooming in System map so after I went back like half a year and had to redesign Sonora IIs, I gave them more range this time (2M instead of 1.3M):
Sonora II Close AMM MSP1 CTH812-261-162-81 (192) Speed: 28,000 km/s End: 1.2m Range: 2m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 270/162/81I am now working on better sensors to match the MCR distance with range of Sonora II.
-
I am now working on better sensors to match the MCR distance with range of Sonora II.
My only AMMs that have seen action have a range of 2.5m km, but I'm not even getting active target locks on the AMMs the enemy is (currently) firing at me until ~150,000km despite a res-1 active I thought should spot small missiles at greater range ... so better sensors sounds very wise to me right now, lol.
Are you using the Missile Designer on the web? That Sonora Close AMM seems too slow to have a size-1 warhead and a range of only 1.2m km, but there are a handful of techs that increase the efficiency of missiles by bringing down the MSP you need to reach performance targets. Maybe you need better tech to get better bang for your MSP in WH strength, fuel efficiency, or agility.
Zooming will corrupt the .mdb? I'd be grateful for tips on how I might avoid or minimize that risk ... I have to zoom some and it would be a relief to know what will or won't cause me problems.
-
My only AMMs that have seen action have a range of 2.5m km, but I'm not even getting active target locks on the AMMs the enemy is (currently) firing at me until ~150,000km despite a res-1 active I thought should spot small missiles at greater range ... so better sensors sounds very wise to me right now, lol.
Note resolution 1 active sensors can have few millions km range but small missiles are even smaller. There is "MCR" range of few 100k for missiles of size 6 or smaller. That's for seeing them via active sensors. For the problem of getting weapon lock from your missile fire controls note those missiles can be equipped with modules of electronic warfare that lower the range of your MFCs by few 10s of %.
Are you using the Missile Designer on the web? That Sonora Close AMM seems too slow to have a size-1 warhead and a range of only 1.2m km, but there are a handful of techs that increase the efficiency of missiles by bringing down the MSP you need to reach performance targets. Maybe you need better tech to get better bang for your MSP in WH strength, fuel efficiency, or agility.
I am not using any external tools, only checking wiki and forums from time to time. I am aware of techs that raise the stats of missiles and I don't think I am too low on most of them. I am mostly missing engine boost tech. Size 1, warhead 1 and range of ~1-2m km are intentional values, the rest of missile is filled with agility because there can't be missiles under size 1. I am not adding any sensors until I actually meet some enemy with missiles and I can see what sensor range I would need.
Zooming will corrupt the .mdb? I'd be grateful for tips on how I might avoid or minimize that risk ... I have to zoom some and it would be a relief to know what will or won't cause me problems.
I posted it in the main bug thread (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8144.msg103289#msg103289).
-
I have now checked that Missile Designer (http://romalarapps.elasticbeanstalk.com/aurora/AuroraMissileDesign.aspx) and found out my Sonora II design with 0.5 MSP size engine is the 4-5th best one can get with my current tech for targets at 20k km/s. My score is 40.6, the best one with slightly smaller engine and thus slower but with bit more space for agility has score 41.3.
Sonora II is the 4-5th best design against targets at 25k km/s and 30k km/s, too, being only 0.5, respective 0.4 percentage points after the ideal one (the order of other designs is different for different speeds).
That's close enough. I am satisfied.
For those interested how I got to my design: first I have designed max power engine of 0.1 MSP size. Warhead was easy. Fuel was just small amount to get to the demanded range. Agility was the rest to fill the size 1 missile. Then keep adding these 0.1 engines and lowering agility by 0.1 till you found the best amount. Design one engine of the summed size instead of those (here, 5) little engines and two more 0.05 size next to it (here, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55). Try these three engines, matching agility accordingly to stay at size 1, and pick the best one.
-
Thanks for the bug link, will take a look.
And just on the off chance because you probably know this already, are you entering "1" into the warhead MSP? The "value" is the actual WH strength ... scratch that, if you were doing that the WH size wouldn't be 1 in the specs you posted. It's just the boost you're missing; x3 or bust!
-
Thanks for the bug link, will take a look.
And just on the off chance because you probably know this already, are you entering "1" into the warhead MSP? The "value" is the actual WH strength ... scratch that, if you were doing that the WH size wouldn't be 1 in the specs you posted. It's just the boost you're missing; x3 or bust!
To finally clarify: I am at 0.2 MSP / 1 WH, 64 agility / MSP and am using 1x 0.5 MSP magnetic pulse engine with 350 % power for Sonora II. The generation I Sonora, Baranda and Thuria are all at 0.25 MSP / 1 WH, 48 agility and only 300 % engines tech level, with Sonora and Baranda only having different range and Thuria being size 2 PDC AMM.
-
How can using 'sub-sized' missiles improve anything other than making your missile worse and cheaper? Since the warhead has to keep it's size, you are packing less engine/agility/fuel, thus the missile should get slower/less agile/have less range.
-
How can using 'sub-sized' missiles improve anything other than making your missile worse and cheaper? Since the warhead has to keep it's size, you are packing less engine/agility/fuel, thus the missile should get slower/less agile/have less range.
Smaller missiles are faster.
Manoeuvre rating is higher for smaller missiles.
Chance to hit is higher for faster missiles and missiles with higher manoeuvre rating.
Compare Thuria mod with 0.697 MSP of agility:
Missile Size: 1.971 MSP (0.09855 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 33
Speed: 24400 km/s Engine Endurance: 8 minutes Range: 11.7m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.7422
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 805.2% 3k km/s 264% 5k km/s 161% 10k km/s 80.5%
with its modification that uses 0.726 MSP of agility to get to pure size 2 missile.
Missile Size: 2 MSP (0.1 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 33
Speed: 24000 km/s Engine Endurance: 8 minutes Range: 11.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.7793
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 792% 3k km/s 264% 5k km/s 158.4% 10k km/s 79.2%
Sonora IIs can get like +5 percentage points against 1k km/s targets if only they can be of only 0.993 size, by removing bit of agility.
I guess it may be possible to get better results with using bit bigger engine there but I am not going to design a dozen of engines with 0.01 MSP increment just to get missiles better by few percentage points. And using missile design tools to find the best design is not as rewarding as finding decent designs yourself. So I will design two or three sizes of engine, pick one of them and then tweak fuel and agility only.
-
I tend to calculate the agility tonnage I need to push MR up, then use the excess for fuel. If that results in excessive range, I consider my engine too small.
0.7 agility for a size-2 missile would be too much for me.. I prefer larger engines even if that results in very slightly lower accuracy: agility is expensive, larger engine slightly improves fuel efficiency, higher speed has soft benefits.
-
Smaller missiles are faster.
Only if you keep the same engine, so that it has higher power per size/mass
And yes, missile design is super annoying with missile engines as components and no way to 'simulate' them before researching them.
-
In my experience, engagement range is one of the most essential parts in missile point defense, anlong with AMM Speed, with some decent sensor tech, I tell you its possible to engage size 6 missiles at 8 million kilometers range using just 10 HS of active sensors, and that just pumps up the efficiency of your PD way way up. when you get maximum engine boost, if you design your missiles just right they should get speeds of 40k kilometers per sec, and with your agility tech, you should be able to get at least 30% hit chance on missiles going at 33k kilometers per second. with your reload speed, if you can research your way through this engine boost, and make sensors and fire ontrol capable of engaging at 6-7 million kilometers, if you put 20-30 launchers, you could very well engage in frequent combat, firing 1vs1 PD and not even get hit by a single missile most of the time, essentialy wasting all of their ordinance while recieving 0 damage (provided that you carry engough missiles to do that of course)
-
Also higher speed means you end up getting more chances to engage the enemy missiles