Missile design with new Final fire rules.

[DFNewb (OP)]

I recently got the idea of having my missile volleys be

A bunch of size 1 missiles with 1 damage
A few big missiles (currently size 30) that do the real damage.
They all move at the same speed so if launched with sync fire will all move together.

Due to:

I've updated that for C# Aurora to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first (and be engaged first by final defensive fire).

The bigger missiles can be seen faster by actives so maybe they will get hit by AMM's. You could somewhat counter this by making the bigger missiles size 6 so they will all be seen together.

Currently I have fighter's with 30 size 1 box launchers and another type of fighter with 1 size 30 (could be 5 size 6) launcher(s).
They launch their missiles all together.
The missiles:

Missile Size: 1.000 MSP  (2.5000 Tons)     Warhead: 1    Radiation Damage: 1    Manoeuvre Rating: 16
Speed: 60 000 km/s     Fuel: 407     Flight Time: 3 minutes     Range: 11.48m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.8625     Development Cost: 186
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 960%   3k km/s 320%   5k km/s 192%   10k km/s 96%

Materials Required
Tritanium  0.2505
Gallicite  1.612
Fuel:  407

Missile Size: 30.00 MSP  (75.000 Tons)     Warhead: 54    Radiation Damage: 54    Manoeuvre Rating: 16
Speed: 60 000 km/s     Fuel: 2 325     Flight Time: 3 minutes     Range: 11.98m km
Cost Per Missile: 61.812     Development Cost: 6 181
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 960%   3k km/s 320%   5k km/s 192%   10k km/s 96%

Materials Required
Tritanium  13.5
Gallicite  48.312
Fuel:  2325

Contender for size 6 missile:

Missile Size: 6.0 MSP  (15.00 Tons)     Warhead: 9    Radiation Damage: 9    Manoeuvre Rating: 17
Speed: 60 000 km/s     Fuel: 1 000     Flight Time: 3 minutes     Range: 11.52m km
Cost Per Missile: 12.05     Development Cost: 1 205
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1020.0%   3k km/s 340.0%   5k km/s 204.0%   10k km/s 102.0%

Materials Required
Tritanium  2.25
Gallicite  9.80
Fuel:  1000

Thoughts on this sort of missile design with size 1 missiles meant to eat the PD fire for the real hitters to get through?

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Dangerously cheesy.  I like it.  Personally I'd go with the size 6 or maybe a size 10 for the hammer.  Your size 1 is about what I like for ASM1 as is.

[Iceranger]

If the salvo size is determined by the number of missiles per salvo, you can probably have each fighter carry 1x S30 + 2x S1, or 4x S6 + 5x S1. Smaller salvo is still more effective against multi shot weapons or large gauss turrets since each weapon can engage 1 salvo only. This also eliminates the need of 2 fighter designs.

[DFNewb (OP)]

If the salvo size is determined by the number of missiles per salvo, you can probably have each fighter carry 1x S30 + 2x S1, or 4x S6 + 5x S1. Smaller salvo is still more effective against multi shot weapons or large gauss turrets since each weapon can engage 1 salvo only. This also eliminates the need of 2 fighter designs.

Yes I also considered this after posting. I was thinking 3 Size 6 missiles and 12 size 1. I was running just 30 size 1 missiles before and while it was nice it was not very cost effective.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I would rank the 1:2 fighter arrangement as maximum cheese.  To defeat that the defender needs a minimum of two turrets for every three incoming missiles.  The 4:5 ratio only demands two turrets for every nine.

I wonder if this would work:  Design 2 size 1 ASMs with similar stats and go 1xS24+2xS1a+2xS1b.  That is 1 MSP lighter than the 4:5 while providing more protection.

[Jorgen_CAB]

At some point it is just abusing loopholes in the games mechanics and serves no real purpose in my opinion.

There is no reason why realistically that you would not target the larger ASM first (automatically) before even attempting to intercept the smaller missiles and have the smaller missiles hitting your shields and armour and do pretty much no damage and no chock damage what so ever. Destroying an enemy ship that way would probably cost more than the ship you are destroying most likely. A human player can even direct AMM to target the large missiles first which would just be micromanagement work.

Maximum cheese is designing a separate missile type for each unique launcher and fire the missiles that way (not impossible for size 1 missiles)... now every missile is their own salvo are require their own turret or missile fire-control to engage. You might as well use SM to delete the NPR ships or just add stuff whenever you need them too.

Another cheesy strategy is creating a missiles in two stages... the first have the same speed as the missile ship itself.... you now shoot MANY salvos that all will become collected in one HUGE salvo. They will separate at a rather big distance. There are some drawbacks to this as it assume rather fast missile ships (not impossible) and need a certain distance to pull off. But it can be a devastatingly effective way to gather humongous salvos both in quantity and quality. Can be extremely effective using FAC at around 750-1000t or other small short range missile ships. Have each cruiser with a 4000t hangar in which you have this missile launching platform who is VERY fast but only a few hundred km range. They detach and use this cheesy tactic... 

At some point you have to stop and think what is good for the game you are playing. There have always been edge cases in Aurora in terms f mechanic where they break down in logical coherent valid ways to play them. Now... it is perfectly up to you as a player to decide where this point is.

Personally I have ALWAYS required some space on missiles for "electronics" (in VB6 I used 0.51p armour) so really small missiles for ASM duty is impossible (more or less). I would only allow AMM to be directly guided by the fire-control without electronics. In my games that means I need to put AT LEAST 0.25 MSP worth of some sort of electronics in all ASM missiles that is not very short ranged (a few million km at most).
My second "rule" is... one MFC can ever only fire ONE type of missile per launching salvo so that each salvo is one coherent salvo and not several which otherwise can break the gaming rules.

This way missiles become a bit more "realistic" in my point of view.

[Suxxor]

Basic missile defence saturation tactics.
Approved.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

At some point it is just abusing loopholes in the games mechanics and serves no real purpose in my opinion.

Abusing game mechanics is a purpose unto itself.  If you are playing a serious game then that is serious business and it should be taken seriously, but if you are playing green-cheese-on-the-moon then finding exploits is half the fun.

[skoormit]

I recently got the idea of having my missile volleys be

A bunch of size 1 missiles with 1 damage
A few big missiles (currently size 30) that do the real damage.
They all move at the same speed so if launched with sync fire will all move together.

Due to:

I've updated that for C# Aurora to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first (and be engaged first by final defensive fire).

The cheese is strong with this one.

[skoormit]

At some point it is just abusing loopholes in the games mechanics and serves no real purpose in my opinion.

Oh, but it does.

For some, it is a fun challenge to min/max everything possible in a rule set. (For others, it's not fun, because the challenge is to follow the RAI, not exploit the RAW. That's okay, too.)

And, pushing edge cases in order to break a game mechanic is a way to better understand not only the particular mechanic, but also the design tradeoffs inherent in the creation of all mechanics.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

At some point it is just abusing loopholes in the games mechanics and serves no real purpose in my opinion.

Oh, but it does.

For some, it is a fun challenge to min/max everything possible in a rule set. (For others, it's not fun, because the challenge is to follow the RAI, not exploit the RAW. That's okay, too.)

And, pushing edge cases in order to break a game mechanic is a way to better understand not only the particular mechanic, but also the design tradeoffs inherent in the creation of all mechanics.

Figuring out how game mechanics break is also a useful tool when looking for ways to improve those mechanics.

[Pedroig]

At some point it is just abusing loopholes in the games mechanics and serves no real purpose in my opinion.

There is no reason why realistically that you would not target the larger ASM first (automatically) before even attempting to intercept the smaller missiles and have the smaller missiles hitting your shields and armour and do pretty much no damage and no chock damage what so ever. Destroying an enemy ship that way would probably cost more than the ship you are destroying most likely.

It does serve a purpose, just not one that you may agree with or RP with.

The reason why one would realistically, or RP, do this, is that the size 1 volley is actually an AMM-AMM, but since the game does not allow one to target missiles until after they are launched, this emulates that via game mechanics.  The smaller missiles "missing" their actual targets (the AMM's) and hitting the ships is purely a coincidental bonus.

Now if your enemy does not use missiles, and relies solely on DPD, then saturation should be achieved by using multiple prime number salvos of ASM to reach saturation point.

In general societies tend to work their defense based upon their own capabilities, and then adapt to the capabilities of exterior forces/engagements/capabilities.  So if one runs a missile heavy fleet, one will have an extensive AMM/PD doctrine.  However, if one runs a BFC heavy fleet, with little to no MFC capability, then they will not, and when they meet an enemy which does focus on missiles, will have to adapt to the changing environment.  How they do that is up to them, but the march of progress on offensive and defensive capabilities will continue onwards, as it always has.

[Jorgen_CAB]

At some point it is just abusing loopholes in the games mechanics and serves no real purpose in my opinion.

There is no reason why realistically that you would not target the larger ASM first (automatically) before even attempting to intercept the smaller missiles and have the smaller missiles hitting your shields and armour and do pretty much no damage and no chock damage what so ever. Destroying an enemy ship that way would probably cost more than the ship you are destroying most likely.

It does serve a purpose, just not one that you may agree with or RP with.

The reason why one would realistically, or RP, do this, is that the size 1 volley is actually an AMM-AMM, but since the game does not allow one to target missiles until after they are launched, this emulates that via game mechanics.  The smaller missiles "missing" their actual targets (the AMM's) and hitting the ships is purely a coincidental bonus.

Now if your enemy does not use missiles, and relies solely on DPD, then saturation should be achieved by using multiple prime number salvos of ASM to reach saturation point.

In general societies tend to work their defense based upon their own capabilities, and then adapt to the capabilities of exterior forces/engagements/capabilities.  So if one runs a missile heavy fleet, one will have an extensive AMM/PD doctrine.  However, if one runs a BFC heavy fleet, with little to no MFC capability, then they will not, and when they meet an enemy which does focus on missiles, will have to adapt to the changing environment.  How they do that is up to them, but the march of progress on offensive and defensive capabilities will continue onwards, as it always has.

It is not from pure RP but how the game mechanic breaks down... I'm not against using size 1 missiles just becasue... but using them to hide larger missiles that is abusing the game mechanics.

PD for example will always fire on the larger salvos first... so the large missiles are most likley NEVER engaged by PD at all.

Any logical reasoning then you would tell the fire computer to target the big missiles first and likewise with the AMM.

The electronics part that is just a self imposed rule and has nothing to do with that other stuff... 

In my opinion it is about game balance... if you can just completely overwhelm enemy PD to the point they are worthless no matter what tech level you use then the system is broken and such tactic should be avoided in my opinion, not fact. You can use SM to give yourself allot of advantages too and that is fine as well.

I'm just pointing out that it is using the mechanic in a way it is not likely intended as it breaks the balance when you get down to the nitty gritty of things. There is nothing wrong with it... just pointing to the fact that it has consequences to overall balance.

If you take it to the extreme and you had an opponent that could deal with it you would then get a situation where no one create any ASM defences and rely solely on offensive action. But if that is the kind of action you want it might be interesting to.

The game is personal and you do whatever you like.

[Pedroig]

I agree, just pointing out one way of looking at it.  When I do Age of Sails in space, I don't use any missiles or PD UNTIL I face an enemy who uses missiles or fighters, then I have to adapt.  When I am playing a Honorverse game however, beam range between capitals becomes increasingly rarer, and everything becomes about ASM, AMM, PD, and missile ECM and ECCM.

[Iceranger]

At some point it is just abusing loopholes in the games mechanics and serves no real purpose in my opinion.

There is no reason why realistically that you would not target the larger ASM first (automatically) before even attempting to intercept the smaller missiles and have the smaller missiles hitting your shields and armour and do pretty much no damage and no chock damage what so ever. Destroying an enemy ship that way would probably cost more than the ship you are destroying most likely.

It does serve a purpose, just not one that you may agree with or RP with.

The reason why one would realistically, or RP, do this, is that the size 1 volley is actually an AMM-AMM, but since the game does not allow one to target missiles until after they are launched, this emulates that via game mechanics.  The smaller missiles "missing" their actual targets (the AMM's) and hitting the ships is purely a coincidental bonus.

Now if your enemy does not use missiles, and relies solely on DPD, then saturation should be achieved by using multiple prime number salvos of ASM to reach saturation point.

In general societies tend to work their defense based upon their own capabilities, and then adapt to the capabilities of exterior forces/engagements/capabilities.  So if one runs a missile heavy fleet, one will have an extensive AMM/PD doctrine.  However, if one runs a BFC heavy fleet, with little to no MFC capability, then they will not, and when they meet an enemy which does focus on missiles, will have to adapt to the changing environment.  How they do that is up to them, but the march of progress on offensive and defensive capabilities will continue onwards, as it always has.

It is not from pure RP but how the game mechanic breaks down... I'm not against using size 1 missiles just becasue... but using them to hide larger missiles that is abusing the game mechanics.

PD for example will always fire on the larger salvos first... so the large missiles are most likley NEVER engaged by PD at all.

Any logical reasoning then you would tell the fire computer to target the big missiles first and likewise with the AMM.

The electronics part that is just a self imposed rule and has nothing to do with that other stuff... 

In my opinion it is about game balance... if you can just completely overwhelm enemy PD to the point they are worthless no matter what tech level you use then the system is broken and such tactic should be avoided in my opinion, not fact. You can use SM to give yourself allot of advantages too and that is fine as well.

I'm just pointing out that it is using the mechanic in a way it is not likely intended as it breaks the balance when you get down to the nitty gritty of things. There is nothing wrong with it... just pointing to the fact that it has consequences to overall balance.

If you take it to the extreme and you had an opponent that could deal with it you would then get a situation where no one create any ASM defences and rely solely on offensive action. But if that is the kind of action you want it might be interesting to.

The game is personal and you do whatever you like.

If we want to consider any realism... then it is easy to justify that the decoy missiles have things like retroreflective devices or something of that nature on them so the radar cannot tell if they are large missiles or not, or even trick the fire control computer to think they are large missiles themselves. We already have something like this on 'conventional' MIRV ballistic missiles.

After all, it is more about RP, not balance...