Economy of Missile Launchers

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

So, i was trying to make the most compact Corvette i can (Something on the 7ktons) and still be able to patrol and escort with total efficiency when i just realized something: I could use box launchers, without reloading and magazines. Those ships will most likely never fire, and if they do, it will be for skirmish or colony defense only so i've said it: Why not? Then something interesting happened... Using a 3.3 size missile and box launcher, i can have 44 of those missiles for only 1.100 tons and that is without any need for magazines or crew addition plus i get to fire all of them without reload time. The downside is that once they are fired, thats it. I cant reload again until those ships dock into a station or maybe ressuply in orbit of a colony.
With a 75% reducted missile launcher and a 332 size magazine i can get short of 41 missiles on the cost of 1.144 tons. However, each Launcher adds 7 crew and the magazine adds more 10. So its 52 extra crewmen on board. It seems to add something around 100 or 75 extra tons. So what is the catch, what i am missing in terms of cost benefit and have anyone tried this approach before?
(I will probably not carry 44 missiles. Maybe something around 36.)

[serger]

Box launchers are very vulnerable to detonation; with reloading launchers you can use armored magazines - less detonation risk being under fire.

[Andrew]

I think it is widely recognised that Box Launcher salvo's are the king of ASM engagment, only the reload problem stops them being perfect. Sometimes people avoid building box launcher ships precisely because they are so superior in killing power to anything else because normal NPR's can't cope with them at all , it is easy to overload their defensese and at the same time their use of normal missile launches  means they launch their missiles at you ins small salvo's and it is much easier to defend against 20 salvo's of 10 missiles over 10 minutes than one salvo of 120 in one wave.

When I use missile ships I rarely carry anything else as they are much more deadly , as you would expect compared to real world sample. You avoid the risk of them exploding from damage by firing them at the enemy .

[Gyrfalcon]

I’d honestly prefer if there was a limit to the number of box launchers (or MSP in box launchers) compared to the size of the ship. It would give a reason to use both types - box launchers to thicken the first salvo with external ordnance, and missile launchers for sustained attacks.

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

I think it is widely recognised that Box Launcher salvo's are the king of ASM engagment, only the reload problem stops them being perfect. Sometimes people avoid building box launcher ships precisely because they are so superior in killing power to anything else because normal NPR's can't cope with them at all , it is easy to overload their defensese and at the same time their use of normal missile launches  means they launch their missiles at you ins small salvo's and it is much easier to defend against 20 salvo's of 10 missiles over 10 minutes than one salvo of 120 in one wave.

When I use missile ships I rarely carry anything else as they are much more deadly , as you would expect compared to real world sample. You avoid the risk of them exploding from damage by firing them at the enemy .

Yea... What i am doing is: I put 12 box launchers for the ship killers and a magazine and fewer missiles for the AMM since they will be used in endurance base and i cant afford to send them all at once. I plan on deploying my Corvettes With another one to cover, so i may add 4 more launchers to make it 16 and give me a little more endurance. However with 2 armor i reckon that if the ship gets hit it will most likely die. I did put a twin gauss turret and a twin laser turret just in case and a shield just in case.

[Kristover]

I mark Box Launchers in the category of 'gamey things' which are there for the player to abuse.  If you resist the temptation than you can enhance your enjoyment of the game through some good fights that don't end in a single salvo.  I know in my games, I impose a rule on myself of no Box Launchers for craft 1000+ tons.  I use 500ton or under fighters and 501-1000 ton FACs and call them 'bombers' and my fighters are primarily rail, laser, or microwave craft and the bombers carry box launchers (usually 6-8 size 6 missile launchers).  I occasionally experiment with some fighters carrying size 1 box launchers to mix things up.  I reason for my playstyle that my Federation wouldn't put something so hideously vulnerable as an unarmored box launcher on a capital ship given the costs in crew and resources.

[serger]

In fairness, well, modern wet missile ships are using mostly box launchers for ASM, AFAIK.

[Andrew]

Serious missile ships today use VLS Box launchers some older and smaller ships use single shot box launchers in a horizontal position.  Reloading missile launchers have been out dated since the early models of the Ticondroga cruisers.

The main issue with Box launchers in Aurora is that NPR's don't use them so you will never face truly effective missile salvo's from them and even faily light defenses can stop their ASM salvo's . However nearly as effective as Box launchers are small size 1 missiles used offensively from fairly rapid firing launchers and NPR's do use those a lot which also means it needs a reasonably sized box launcher salvo to overcome their AMM's of you are of similar tech. Players can also build lots of size 1 missile launchers , the npr's cope better as you have to come close to their AMM range to use yours offensively.
Defending against AMM's with your own AMM's is a pain as you do not get great hit chances against them and so have to spend more AMM's defensily than the attacker fires.
Given that Box launcher salvo's are all or nothing if you fire too few you can do nothing if you fire enough or too many you destroy the enemy I tend to not use missiles much at all, instead concentrating on lots of guns to shoot down incoming missiles and then kill the enemy at close range, which works against npr's but a well planned player built fleet could have enough missiles to overwhelm those defenses. So abuse of Box launchers is a player thing if it bothers you when fighting NPR's don't do it and if controlling all the races make the decisions for each race and see what works and is fun

[nuclearslurpee]

In general, box launchers are the strongest tactical offensive weapon in Aurora in most scenarios, because as others have stated they give the greatest potential for a massive salvo which can overwhelm point defenses.

However in strategic terms any reloadable launcher with a magazine can store much more ordnance than box launchers can. Box launchers take up 15% of the space as a regular launcher of the same missile size, but a full-size launcher plus an equal-size magazine will give even at base techs about 40 16 missiles whereas the same tonnage of box launchers will only hold about 14 or 15 missiles accounting for crew. For regular ASMs having such deep magazines is not so important (a magazine depth of 10-20 salvos is usually plenty, and still is more space-efficient than box launchers) but for AMMs it is quite important as you can accomplish a lot with rapid fire if your sensors or AWACS are good enough to give yourself enough lead time.

[Paul M]

If 120x1 salvo is any different than 12x10 salvos is only determined by the number of counter-missile tubes and the response or flight time from detection.  A typical NCN DD squadron (36 counter-missile tubes) could destroy 120 inbound missiles except when they were launched inside of 40 seconds flight time (and half that for more advanced launchers).  For a 7Kt FAC-ish ship to survive to reach that launch range is hard to imagine.   For a wolver dammed magic missile super salvo firing base 120 inbound missiles would need to be launched with less than 15 seconds flight time...even one of their anti-missile 3 magic firing ships you would have to launch with less than 100 seconds of flight time.   I switched my heavy frigates from size 5 to size 3 missiles and 2 tubes to 3 tubes as they could then put more missiles into space faster but against a properly done layered defence you still end up with only "leakers" independent if you launch as one or multiple salvos where they are dangerous is if you have large numbers of fighters/fac and they launch from very short response times ranges.  Then you can overwhelm the missile defences.   My first encounter with Wolver Facs went badly as I didn't know they had box launchers and due to time step wierdness they were detected at a range of effectively 0 and I fired my counter-missiles against the Facs...so their missiles caught me while my tubes were cycling...against more advanced tubes most of their missiles would have been destroyed anyway...that case I think all missiles launched would have been engaged.

The down side to ship mounted (as opposed to fighter/fac mounted) box launchers is you can't reload in mid battle.  And for me that is too much lost.  I have several times reloaded my ships from colliers in between engagements in a battle.   I mean for a ship that you think will only engage once anyway and either lives or dies then the value to the single shot larger salvo is there.  But then I'd say you would be better off to make an escort carrier/fighter base instead and rely on its onboard fighters for that job.  Though admittedly an escort carrier is not cheap. 

For me it is a trade off and clearly arguments work in both directions.   If the NPR really have that much difficulty with them well alright then don't use them.  But that is an issue with the NPR ship design rather than box launchers themselves.

I was (or am) still looking into using box launchers for "torpedoes"...large warheaded short range armour breakers....where each BB carries 2 of these 20 MSP things.  I certainly would not want to put a 20 MSP launcher in the ship...but a 20 MSP box launcher is sorta acceptable space wise.

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

However in strategic terms any reloadable launcher with a magazine can store much more ordnance than box launchers can. Box launchers take up 15% of the space as a regular launcher of the same missile size, but a full-size launcher plus an equal-size magazine will give even at base techs about 40 missiles whereas the same tonnage of box launchers will only hold about 14 or 15 missiles accounting for crew. For regular ASMs having such deep magazines is not so important (a magazine depth of 10-20 salvos is usually plenty, and still is more space-efficient than box launchers) but for AMMs it is quite important as you can accomplish a lot with rapid fire if your sensors or AWACS are good enough to give yourself enough lead time.

Not really tough. I just made the math there, you actually lose 250-300 tons of weight by using box launchers and can have up to 4 extra missiles *without* the extra crew. Box Launchers dont add crew to it, but magazines and Launchers do. What it made the exchange acceptable for me was for AMM missiles, then i opted for a launcher for more stamina. I reckon i would have fired my ASM missiles already, so the blow up chance if for the AMM anyway. The Launchers are small and the magazine too, so i can have 10 salvos of 6 missiles without adding too much tonnage.
I have not however used that in battle yet, so i dont know how is that going to hold up in reality.

[nuclearslurpee]

Yes, I made some error in my previous calculation. If you mount size 1 launchers (normal size) and a 1 HS magazine with the base level 75% space efficiency, you can carry 16 size-1 AMMs in that 2 HS of space (previously I miscalculated and said 40). Box launchers in the same space will carry 12.67 missiles, however since the full-size launcher and magazine both have crew requirements in practice the box launchers carry more like 14 or 15 missiles in the same tonnage as the full-size arrangement. So the full-size arrangement has a higher total capacity for missiles as long as you have at least a 1:1 ratio of magazine to launcher tonnage, but if you have a smaller tonnage of magazines than this then the advantage disappears.

Of course the challenge in battle is that you need to detect an enemy missile salvo far enough away to launch your 16 waves of AMMs, otherwise the box launchers are better in practice since they aren't limited by reload rate. This means you need to have either big missile warning sensors with a few million kms range, or else you have to run a good AWACS patrol to target those missiles farther out. Of course the other cost here is the larger MFCs you need to target that far out, which probably means box launchers have the edge until you get to the mid-level techs such as Reload Rate 6 and more efficient magazines.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The "problem" is that Aurora don't care about ships being anywhere near decent in terms of space and what it is used for in terms of volume versus surface area and overall integrity of the ship hull etc..

That is why it is up to you as a player to judge what is a fair and "realistic" ship design. In general I have no problem with using box launchers on a ship as long as the proportion of the ships mission tonnage versus armour, engine, crew etc is reasonable.

A ship that us basically just box launchers and a missile control is not really realistic from a physical perspective even if the game allows it as it don't care about proportions, internal integrity, shape of the hull to support it and any potential damage, need for crew to access all parts of a ship etc..

All of these things have to be role-played and why some things seems gamey... in some sense the game allow you a bit crazy designs as they might sometimes come up as sensible in some situations. In reality it is quite difficult to just put something together in blocks without technical or engineering compromises as you can in Aurora ship design. This is generally why ships and vehicles tend to all look the same with the same limitations in reality.

In terms of a real missile destroyer or frigate the space where missile goes are hard contested by other equipment and can't be placed just anywhere.

[Panopticon]

I've had fun with box launchers on survey ships before, you can mount your survey drones in them and also load a few with powerful "torpedo's that might actually have a chance of destroying or damaging a single ship that comes to hassle it.

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

I mark Box Launchers in the category of 'gamey things' which are there for the player to abuse.  If you resist the temptation than you can enhance your enjoyment of the game through some good fights that don't end in a single salvo.  I know in my games, I impose a rule on myself of no Box Launchers for craft 1000+ tons.  I use 500ton or under fighters and 501-1000 ton FACs and call them 'bombers' and my fighters are primarily rail, laser, or microwave craft and the bombers carry box launchers (usually 6-8 size 6 missile launchers).  I occasionally experiment with some fighters carrying size 1 box launchers to mix things up.  I reason for my playstyle that my Federation wouldn't put something so hideously vulnerable as an unarmored box launcher on a capital ship given the costs in crew and resources.

For real, there was one guy here on the forum that got hit by more than 1.8 MILLION missiles from a NPR. It took 17 and a half days for their stock to "run out" and by run out i mean they still kept sending in waves of 10.