Beam PD post missile changes

[nakorkren (OP)]

Fighting my first combat post-missile changes, and I'm loving how different missile combat looks. However, with box missile spam and/or AMM spam now being easier to handle via decoys, I'm wondering if 10cm reduced size lasers become a more viable option for PD against waves of larger missiles spaced far apart due to the enemy's use of reduced sized launchers. I think you'll still want to use some multi-warhead AMMs to cut expend some of the missile's decoys, but seems like reduced-sized 10cm lasers for PD should now be useful, since you can pack a lot more in and they can handle laser-warhead missiles in addition to normal missiles.

Thoughts?

[Ultimoos]

Since CIWS works the same it did pre 2.2, I do not see appeal in reduced size lasers. Unless I'm mistaken about CIWS.
Edit:
After giving it more thought, now I do see the appeal. Tonnage savings are real, but CIWS can still target multiple missiles in a salvo. So, late CIWS will still outdo reduced lasers.

[nakorkren (OP)]

I've never actually used CIWS, under the assumption that there's no place for them in real combat since they only protect the ship they're mounted on. Are you saying something about the recent change made them more useful (you allude to being able to target multiple missiles in a salvo, but I thought that was already true for other weapons)?

I'm regularly seeing large salvos of missiles spaced 5 or more minutes apart. Given that spacing, the fast fire rate of railguns, gauss, and lasers is pretty much wasted (yes, I understand that this will not always be the case, some other enemy may prioritize full firing rate salvos in close spacing). Given that, lasers are the only one beam PD weapon that offers a reduced size in exchange for reduced firing rate, which in that scenario is getting reduced size for free meaning you can mount more! Plus since they're smaller, the lasers are cheaper and require less crew.

[Garfunkel]

AMM spam will still likely have salvos spaced mere 5 seconds apart so while it is true that a reduced size 10cm laser turrets might be great for taking out ASM salvos that arrive 30+ seconds apart, for many encounters you will still have to get through the AMM spam. But definitely a case here for proper testing.

[Nori]

None of the enemy ships I've encountered used missiles in my most recent game but I was wondering, are the NPRs/Spoilers using fractional warheads? The changelog says fractional can't hurt armor so I would assume AMM spam is only dangerous if you continue to use just one warhead..

[Snoman314]

I've never actually used CIWS, under the assumption that there's no place for them in real combat since they only protect the ship they're mounted on. Are you saying something about the recent change made them more useful (you allude to being able to target multiple missiles in a salvo, but I thought that was already true for other weapons)?

The point defence mechanics changes in v2.2.0 http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164276#msg164276 mean that regular PD are now 'leaky' in that they have all shots assigned before hits are calculated, and so some missiles have all assigned shots miss. CIWS retain the old behaviour where it fired away at missiles one after the other, evaluating the outcome of each shot before moving on the the next shot/missile. This means as long as CIWS has shots remaining, no missiles can get through.

[nakorkren (OP)]

None of the enemy ships I've encountered used missiles in my most recent game but I was wondering, are the NPRs/Spoilers using fractional warheads? The changelog says fractional can't hurt armor so I would assume AMM spam is only dangerous if you continue to use just one warhead..

Nori, to answer your question, in my sole encounter so far the AMMs used size 1 warheads. Your mileage may vary, more details in the spoiler section below.

In the brief encounter I had with Precursors they appeared to be using reduced-size (and hence longer rate of fire) launchers with salvos on greater than 5 minute spacing, launching waves of size 11 standoff (aka laser warhead) missiles with decoys. They ALSO used AMMs with size 1 warheads (or at least they did 1 damage each hit, didn't notice whether there were multiple warheads), and those AMMs were on something like 30 second spacing.

As always, there's no guarantee that will always be the case, and I suspect the spoilers now have much more variety of kit, but that seems to indicate that in some (possibly many or even most) cases a reduced rate of fire of PD is acceptable as a trade-off to get more weight of PD fire (or just to let you mount more offensive weapons, which ever you prefer for your ship).

[nuclearslurpee]

I've never actually used CIWS, under the assumption that there's no place for them in real combat since they only protect the ship they're mounted on. Are you saying something about the recent change made them more useful (you allude to being able to target multiple missiles in a salvo, but I thought that was already true for other weapons)?

The point defence mechanics changes in v2.2.0 http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164276#msg164276 mean that regular PD are now 'leaky' in that they have all shots assigned before hits are calculated, and so some missiles have all assigned shots miss. CIWS retain the old behaviour where it fired away at missiles one after the other, evaluating the outcome of each shot before moving on the the next shot/missile. This means as long as CIWS has shots remaining, no missiles can get through.

More succinctly: CIWS is the best way to deal with leakers, and in 2.2+ any other method of point defense is much more likely to leave leakers. This means it works in its intended niche as the last-ditch active defense system.

[nakorkren (OP)]

I've never actually used CIWS, under the assumption that there's no place for them in real combat since they only protect the ship they're mounted on. Are you saying something about the recent change made them more useful (you allude to being able to target multiple missiles in a salvo, but I thought that was already true for other weapons)?

The point defence mechanics changes in v2.2.0 http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164276#msg164276 mean that regular PD are now 'leaky' in that they have all shots assigned before hits are calculated, and so some missiles have all assigned shots miss. CIWS retain the old behaviour where it fired away at missiles one after the other, evaluating the outcome of each shot before moving on the the next shot/missile. This means as long as CIWS has shots remaining, no missiles can get through.

More succinctly: CIWS is the best way to deal with leakers, and in 2.2+ any other method of point defense is much more likely to leave leakers. This means it works in its intended niche as the last-ditch active defense system.

Rather than add CIWS to every ship to deal with leakers, why not use that tonnage for extra shielding? That way it helps with leakers as well as all the other ways shields are beneficial. And realistically you're almost certainly already going to be researching (and installing) shields, whereas if you want to use CIWS, you have to commit to researching Gauss tech, at which point you're committed to using Gauss for PD, probably in addition to what ever mid-range PD you're going to use.

[nuclearslurpee]

Rather than add CIWS to every ship to deal with leakers, why not use that tonnage for extra shielding? That way it helps with leakers as well as all the other ways shields are beneficial. And realistically you're almost certainly already going to be researching (and installing) shields, whereas if you want to use CIWS, you have to commit to researching Gauss tech, at which point you're committed to using Gauss for PD, probably in addition to what ever mid-range PD you're going to use.

Depends on the tech level in addition to all the doctrinal choices and roleplay going on. A Delta-level shield generator (all three techs up to 8k RP) can give you 71 shield points from a 1,000-ton generator and will recharge 0.833... shield points per 5-second increment. In the same tonnage you can mount two CIWS systems (with a bit left over). Which one is better? Shields probably will come out ahead in the case of a single large enemy volley, although the caveat here is that in such cases it is unusual for the result to be marginal - either you defeat the volley easily or you are overwhelmed and take a lot of damage + lose many ships. I think in cases of rapid fire (e.g., AMM spam) the CIWS becomes more useful since it can shoot down multiple missiles every 5 seconds, almost certainly preventing more than 0.833 damage per increment. Over a sustained enemy bombardment over 20+ volleys this would add up in CIWS favor, even though the shields start with a 71-point lead.

I don't think the tech requirement of CIWS is very onerous... Gauss is probably the best close-in beam PD weapon so it is pretty desirable - I usually research Gauss before shields in practice.

[nakorkren (OP)]

Rather than add CIWS to every ship to deal with leakers, why not use that tonnage for extra shielding? That way it helps with leakers as well as all the other ways shields are beneficial. And realistically you're almost certainly already going to be researching (and installing) shields, whereas if you want to use CIWS, you have to commit to researching Gauss tech, at which point you're committed to using Gauss for PD, probably in addition to what ever mid-range PD you're going to use.

Depends on the tech level in addition to all the doctrinal choices and roleplay going on. A Delta-level shield generator (all three techs up to 8k RP) can give you 71 shield points from a 1,000-ton generator and will recharge 0.833... shield points per 5-second increment. In the same tonnage you can mount two CIWS systems (with a bit left over). Which one is better? Shields probably will come out ahead in the case of a single large enemy volley, although the caveat here is that in such cases it is unusual for the result to be marginal - either you defeat the volley easily or you are overwhelmed and take a lot of damage + lose many ships. I think in cases of rapid fire (e.g., AMM spam) the CIWS becomes more useful since it can shoot down multiple missiles every 5 seconds, almost certainly preventing more than 0.833 damage per increment. Over a sustained enemy bombardment over 20+ volleys this would add up in CIWS favor, even though the shields start with a 71-point lead.

I don't think the tech requirement of CIWS is very onerous... Gauss is probably the best close-in beam PD weapon so it is pretty desirable - I usually research Gauss before shields in practice.

If the choice is between no shields and two CIWS, or one 71 point shield, seems like the shield should be a no brainer. Having some rechargeable armor in any kind of drawn out missile fight is hugely beneficial because it lets you ignore a reasonable number of leakers, and/or takes x damage off the top of any attack.

If the choice is between adding another 71 point shield, or adding two CIWS, to your point, looks like it'd be better to add the CIWS.

[nuclearslurpee]

If the choice is between no shields and two CIWS, or one 71 point shield, seems like the shield should be a no brainer. Having some rechargeable armor in any kind of drawn out missile fight is hugely beneficial because it lets you ignore a reasonable number of leakers, and/or takes x damage off the top of any attack.

That really wasn't my point. My point was that each is useful in different circumstances, not that "the shield should be a no brainer". If you gain less than one shield point per 5-second increment, and CIWS can take out multiple leakers per volley, then in the case of very fast volleys (such as AMM spam, a very common AI tactic) the CIWS would perform better assuming we can expect a small number of leakers (if we can expect zero or an overwhelming number of leakers, the point is academic either way).

I do realize that my initial statement that CIWS is the best way to deal with leakers is technically incorrect - I meant the best active defense for dealing with leakers, due to its unique last-ditch fire mechanic with perfect target allocation.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I would say that shields obviously is the much better choice if you have one. You can't measure the shileds as a defence only against missiles so shields are hands down the better choice almost always.

But with that said it entirely depends on your research and the enemy you are facing and the tactic you are using. A layered defence might always be the smartest thing so having both shields and CIWS to some degree can be highly desireable.

You might not however always have Gauss technology available. You might be concentrating only on laser technology for example and skip Gauss entirely, laser technology is really strong as the only choice for beam combat. This leaves you allot of research potential for other things, such as shield technology or just other things. The main issue I see with a strong reliance on Gauss PD is that it can be countered with stand off missiles, laser PD can't be countered with anything.

I rarely would fear AMM, at least not in the current environment... fractional AMM will be rather common sight and even if not AMM is not really that much of a problem. If you have a beam fleet doctrine you should be able to deal with it quite well too, you just have to be able to overwhelm the enemy when you engage them, that is always the key to any engagement anyway.