missile questions + others

[metalax (OP)]

Just started playing around with designing missiles from a Conventional start

Code: [Select]

anti-missile missile

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 9800 km/s    Endurance: 0 minutes   Range: 0.3m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.0025    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  2,500 km
Cost Per Missile: 0.4153
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 98%   3k km/s 30%   5k km/s 19.6%   10k km/s 9.8%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.0025x Uridium   Fuel x3.75

Development Cost for Project: 42RPRange is set to match the basic size 1 res 0 missile fire control, is it sufficient for basic PD duties?

Where can you see the thermal signal strength for a missile? Would the minimal thermal sensors be enough for it to lock on to another salvo fired at the same time from the same ship ie travelling together?

Code: [Select]

Anti-ship Missile

Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 8    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 8300 km/s    Endurance: 60 minutes   Range: 29.9m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.25    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  250,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.9167
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 83%   3k km/s 20%   5k km/s 16.6%   10k km/s 8.3%
Materials Required:    2x Tritanium   0.25x Uridium   1.4167x Gallicite   Fuel x5000

Development Cost for Project: 392RPMatched up with a size 5 res 20 missile FC.

Is this a reasonable design at least as a stop-gap until I can tech up a bit?

Will PDC's automatically reload from a planets stockpiles? If so is there any delay?

Sorium Harvesters will stop harvesting if the fuel tanks are full, correct?

[Rathos]

The problem I see with your AMM is that it only has a 9.8% chance to hit a target going 10k/s

I'm not sure but most of the missiles I've seen have been faster than that!

Here is a AMM I just designed to try and stop the alien missiles.

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 9 MSP  (0.45 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 26
Speed: 26700 km/s    Endurance: 2 minutes   Range: 2.5m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.18    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  180,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 4.83
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 694.2%   3k km/s 208%   5k km/s 138.8%   10k km/s 69.4%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.18x Uridium   7.35x Gallicite   Fuel x250

Development Cost for Project: 483RP
I have a bit more tech than a conventional start though I don't have a lot yet. I also have a Active Search Sensor S420-R1 (1)     GPS 420     Range 4.2m km    Resolution 1 for scanning for missiles.

My problem is their missiles travel ridiculously fast and the best possible % i can get at 10k is 71% with a 24 size missile. These are smaller, enough to be able to fit in a Dual pack MIRV.

[sloanjh]

The problem I see with your AMM is that it only has a 9.8% chance to hit a target going 10k/s

I'm not sure but most of the missiles I've seen have been faster than that!

Here is a AMM I just designed to try and stop the alien missiles.

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 9 MSP  (0.45 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 26
Speed: 26700 km/s    Endurance: 2 minutes   Range: 2.5m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.18    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  180,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 4.83
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 694.2%   3k km/s 208%   5k km/s 138.8%   10k km/s 69.4%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.18x Uridium   7.35x Gallicite   Fuel x250

Development Cost for Project: 483RP
I have a bit more tech than a conventional start though I don't have a lot yet. I also have a Active Search Sensor S420-R1 (1)     GPS 420     Range 4.2m km    Resolution 1 for scanning for missiles.

My problem is their missiles travel ridiculously fast and the best possible % i can get at 10k is 71% with a 24 size missile. These are smaller, enough to be able to fit in a Dual pack MIRV.

Actually, metalax's missile is probably better, if I'm reading your design correctly.  The reason is that you've gone to size-9 for an anti-missile, and the launch rate is inversely proportional to missile size.  So your missiles are going to launch 9x slower than a size-1 design.  If I divide your 69.4% hit probability @ 10k, I get about a 6.3% hit probability, which is about 35% worse than the size-1 design's.

This might be offset by the 5-second floor on missile launch times (i.e. your launcher might not actually launch 9x slower than his), but in general a good rule of thumb is that AMM should be size 1 (or at worst size 2).

EDIT:  Oops - forgot the other (more important) problem - size 9 launchers take up 9x space, so you'll be able fix 9x fewer into a volley.  Coupled with the launch rate slowdown, this means your salvos will be 35% less effective (9x fewer missiles) and 9x less frequent, so only about 4% as effective as the size-1 design.

John

[Rathos]

Your right, if the missiles are going 10k/s. The ones i'm facing are going 22.5km/s so I'm pretty sure my big AMMs only have a 20-30% chance to hit and smaller ones would have less...like 1% or something.  I managed to shoot one volley of my AMMs and using 5 per enemy missile I managed to shoot down 3 enemy missiles with 2 10 shot volleys. Of course the enemy had launched about 20 volleys of x6 missiles and my ships met their doom as the aliens followed them through the jump point.

[metalax (OP)]

Another question: can you target things that have been picked up by passive sensors only or do you need to light them up with actives?

[Rathos]

When the aliens blasted my active sensors off I lost all targeting data to my fire controls even though my passives were still picking them up. That was back when there was 50 meson fighters.

[Charlie Beeler]

Yes, for PD mode you need active sensors.

Here is an average starting counter missile from my games:

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 29
Speed: 24000 km/s    Endurance: 2 minutes   Range: 3.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.125
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 696%   3k km/s 232%   5k km/s 139.2%   10k km/s 69.6%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.614x Gallicite   Fuel x25

Development Cost for Project: 112RP
Warheads have been researched to 5pts per msp, Ion missile engines, fuel eff 60%, and missile agility to 64 per msp.

The above design is .2 WH, .5 eng, .01 fuel, and .29 agility.  They average something like 28% against Precursor ASM's traveling at over 33k/kps.  Mate these with res 0 sensors with a 3mkm range, launcher that at least has a 10sec cycle, and set the PD mode to 3 missiles per target missile and you should be in good shape for the early game.  As long as you have ample supply of missiles on board and in your fleet train.  

For counter missiles I find that onboard sensors take up space better used for engines or agility.

[Canaris]

Are AMMs worthwhile?

I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.

My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.

[welchbloke]

Are AMMs worthwhile?

I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.

My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.

The utility of AMMs depends upon your doctrine.  I subscribe to the 'missiles should not get into CIWS range' doctrine.  I have escort ships with large res 0 sensors and I engage at 5M km plus if I can.  I still carry CIWS and some lasers, but they are definately the last line of defence not the primary. The advantage your ships would have over mine is logistics.  I need a fleet of colliers to support my ships on extended ops and AMMs add to the burden. My ASM designs tend be size 5/6(primary offensive missile), size 10 (long range with good active sensor suite) and, for PDCs, size 24.

[Charlie Beeler]

Considering the throw weight you can see from light box launcher equipped units...my opinion is that AMM/CM (anti-missile missile/counter missile) are a necessary evil if you want to to survive.  Some form of PD energy battery (ie CIWS, turreted Gauss cannon, light-fast laser, etc) are usually a good backup.

I've started a new campaign in v4.82 and this is my current escort cruiser:

Code: [Select]

Portland class Escort Cruiser    11000 tons     930 Crew     2171 BP      TCS 220  TH 265.65  EM 660
3450 km/s     Armour 3-44     Shields 22-240     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 21     PPV 15
Annual Failure Rate: 84%    IFR: 1.2%    Maintenance Capacity 1419 MSP    Max Repair 315 MSP
Magazine 910    

Ion Engine E7.8 (mil/cbt) (11)    Power 69    Fuel Use 78%    Signature 24.15    Armour 0    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 600,000 Litres    Range 125.9 billion km   (422 days at full power)
Gamma R240/12 Shields (11)   Total Fuel Cost  132 Litres per day

Quad Gauss Cannon RF4-R1-100 Turret (1x16)    Range 10,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 1    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S04 16-16000 (1)    Max Range: 32,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     69 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Counter Missile Launcher mk1 (10)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC105-R1 (2)     Range 3.2m km    Resolution 1
CM-1-1 (910)  Speed: 24,000 km/s   End: 2.1m    Range: 3m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 232 / 139 / 69

Active Search Sensor S315-R1 (1)     GPS 315     Range 3.2m km    Resolution 1

ECCM-1 (3)         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
Word to the wise, I have cheated a little.  My database has been modifed with turret speeds matching 4x same generation fire control and Gauss cannon sizes being between .1hs and 1.0 hs  instead of being between .5hs and 6hs.

[Hawkeye]

Are AMMs worthwhile?

I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.

My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.

I also don´t think you can realy get around them.

Shure, if your 5 cruisers encounter a single enemy missileboat, that lobs salvos of 6 to 8 missiles at you, your turrets will pluck pretty much all of them out of space.

But in my last 4.7x game, my last CGs (15.000t) mounted 140 size-4 box launchers. Now imagine my average battlesquadron had 4 to 6 of those along with escorts. This gave the squadron the capability to throw some 600+ missiles in one massive salvo at you. Granted. after that, the launchers would be empty, but your ships would very likely be dead. I prefer the former to the latter

P.S.: I don´t think even a layered defense can keep your ships save against salvos that big, but there is a definitive distinction between 20 to 30 missiles hitting you and 150 to 200 hitting you.

[Charlie Beeler]

Are AMMs worthwhile?

I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.

My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.

I also don´t think you can realy get around them.

Shure, if your 5 cruisers encounter a single enemy missileboat, that lobs salvos of 6 to 8 missiles at you, your turrets will pluck pretty much all of them out of space.

But in my last 4.7x game, my last CGs (15.000t) mounted 140 size-4 box launchers. Now imagine my average battlesquadron had 4 to 6 of those along with escorts. This gave the squadron the capability to throw some 600+ missiles in one massive salvo at you. Granted. after that, the launchers would be empty, but your ships would very likely be dead. I prefer the former to the latter

P.S.: I don´t think even a layered defense can keep your ships save against salvos that big, but there is a definitive distinction between 20 to 30 missiles hitting you and 150 to 200 hitting you.

Exactly.  Smallcraft swarms can also be very nasty.  I've encountered Precuror FAC's with 10 size 4 box launchers.  Even a pair of the above CLE's have trouble with 60 inbounds travelling at 33K/kps.

[metalax (OP)]

A few more questions:

Where can you see the thermal signal strength given off by a missile?

Will PDC's automatically reload from a planets stockpiles? If so is there any delay?

Sorium Harvesters will stop harvesting if the fuel tanks are full, correct?

Replacement battalions, what are they for?

[Hawkeye]

A few more questions:

Where can you see the thermal signal strength given off by a missile?

Not sure you can.
My guess would be: Multiply your Missile engine power per MSP (on the missile construction screen) by the space you allocated to engine.
For example, with nuclear pulse missile drive, you get 1.6 engine power per MSP. If you allocate 1.5 MSP to the engine of a missile, it should have a thermal sig of 2.4.

Note: This is all speculation on my part!!

Will PDC's automatically reload from a planets stockpiles? If so is there any delay?

Not to my knowledge, but you can reload manually on the ships screen (F6) --> Parasites/Missiles tab

Sorium Harvesters will stop harvesting if the fuel tanks are full, correct?

Yes and you should also get a message about the fact in the log

Replacement battalions, what are they for?

They are, well, replacement
Losses due to ground combat will be made good over time. The presence of replacement battalion speed this up considerably.

[metalax (OP)]

A few more questions:

Where can you see the thermal signal strength given off by a missile?

Not sure you can.
My guess would be: Multiply your Missile engine power per MSP (on the missile construction screen) by the space you allocated to engine.
For example, with nuclear pulse missile drive, you get 1.6 engine power per MSP. If you allocate 1.5 MSP to the engine of a missile, it should have a thermal sig of 2.4.

Note: This is all speculation on my part!!

That's about what I'd guessed for manually working it out too.

Replacement battalions, what are they for?

They are, well, replacement
Losses due to ground combat will be made good over time. The presence of replacement battalion speed this up considerably.

Oh? I was under the impression from the Ground Combat Rules post that units were either fully healthy or destroyed.

I realise that the post is rather old but I haven't been able to find anything referring to changes in combat beyond the post in the mechanics forum where boarding and new units were introduced.

If it has changed and units can now be damaged, how does it work?