Missile Combat Discussion

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

This thread is based on a post in the Suggestions thread by Brian. It could have far-reaching implications so I decided to create a new topic.

How about improved magazines.  Each level gives an extra 50 spaces of missles and requires the matching improvement in cargo handling technology.  Make the reasearch cost be double the cost of the cargo handling and it is not something that will be reasearched execpt by races using missles a lot.  Only give 10 spaces for small magazines as there is not as much room to work with to get the better efficiencies.

You may have opened a can of worms

I am sure I looked at this in the past because I remember checking out the size of modern launchers vs modern missiles but unfortunately that is one of the posts we lost after the problem with the hosting site.

One option is to make magazines match the size of missiles, which means reducing the capacity of existing magazines to 30, or perhaps creating a 10 HS magazine with a capacity of 100. Obviously this would have a massive impact on the capability of missile ships. The Oceanian Tribal class DDG shown below would require 60 HS of magazine capacity instead of 9 HS, or more realistically would have to reduce the number of launchers to probably three instead of six and have 1/3rd the magazine space, which would make the ship 1 HS smaller. That would make missile ships very weak unless missiles were made much more effective, such as being faster, harder to hit, having larger warheads or a combination of those. However, that would then also make launch rails and smaller, slow-firing missile launchers much more effective. Fighters and FACs would have a considerably greater punch. All of that would make Aurora a very different game in terms of missile combat. Not necessarily worse but very different. Rather than a Honor Harrington type situation it would be far more like modern naval combat, or perhaps even the modern Battlestar Galactica, where a single missile hit could be devastating. Given probable future warhead yields that might not be unrealistic.

Code: [Select]

Tribal class Destroyer    5850 tons     627 Crew     760 BP      TCS 117  TH 360  EM 420
3076 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 14-300     Sensors 10/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0     PPV 24
Magazine 600    Replacement Parts 5    

Nuclear Pulse Engine E7 (9)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.70    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 70,000 Litres    Range 73.8 billion km   (277 days at full power)
Beta R300/10.5 Shields (9)   Total Fuel Cost  95 Litres per day

Mk I Guided Missile Launch System (6)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 40
M900 Missile Fire Control  (1)    Range: 900k km
RGM-1 Katana (114)  Speed: 10,000 km/s   Endurance: 75 secs    Range: 750k km   Warhead: 3    Size: 4
RGM-2 Halberd (36)  Speed: 14,000 km/s   Endurance: 53 secs    Range: 742k km   Warhead: 2    Size: 4

SPS-32/16 Active Sensor (1)     GPS 320     Range 3.2m km    Resolution 16
ST-2 Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 10     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  10m km

Option Two is to make missiles much smaller. Perhaps 1 point of missile size = 1/100th a HS. That works out well for magazine space, with a 3HS magazine equal to 300 points of magazine space. 200 points then looks very reasonable for a basic magazine with some later tech upping that toward the 300 limit. It also gives missile mass as 1 ton for a size 2 missile and 5 tons for a size 10 missile, which again looks reasonable. However, that gives two new problems. Firstly a missile launcher is now 100x larger than the missile, the smallest slow-reload launcher would be 25x and even a launch rail is 15x larger. I seem to recall from my earlier look at this that the 100x larger launcher is not necessarily unrealistic given modern equivalents but the launch rail would likely be smaller, which itself makes missile ships more effective.

A halfway house possibility here is to make one point of missile size = 1/50th HS, or one ton per point. Magazines would be 5 HS instead of 3HS, (making them equivalent to 250 points of missiles) and retaining their 200 point storage. This makes launchers 50x times larger, slow-reload 12x larger and Launch rails 7x larger. Still high but on the edge of believable. This is probably a reasonable compromise between playability and realism, especially if I dropped launch rails to 10% or 5x missile size.

Which brings me to the second problem for reduced missile size. Sensors currently detect missiles at the point of missile size = 1/10th HS level. If that is reduced to 1/50th or 1/100th, missiles go from difficult to detect to almost impossible. Given the active current sensor model, sensors would have to be huge to be able to acquire missiles at a range where they could be engaged before striking their target.

There are a few ways around this that I can think of. One is to allow ships to shoot at thermal contacts, instead of just active. I could easily give missiles a much higher thermal strength than their cross-section due to the high power of missile drives. Another alternative is to give active sensors an ability to zero in on thermal contacts at a greater range than they would detect a new contact. Finally a special type of active sensor designed to pick out small contacts that wouldn't work on large contacts above a certain size.

A third option is to pretend Brian didn't post or at least to accept the inconsistency but internal consistency is a major design driver for me with Aurora.

I am very open to other options and suggestions in this area.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I have spent some time thinking about this since my original post, when I was leaning towards much smaller missiles. The more I think about it, the more reducing missile sizes to just half their current size might be better. Missiles in future space combat would probably be fairly large so if a missile was 1/20th of a hull space that would make a size 4 missile 10 tons and a size 12 missile 30 tons. Ships would need more magazines or fewer launchers (probably the latter) as the current 3 HS magazine would be reduced to perhaps 50 points instead of 200 (as 3HS = 60 missile points and some internal structure and mechanism would be required).

Launcher Size would be reasonable with a standard launcher being 20x missile size, the smallest slow-reload launcher would be 5x missile size and a Launch Rail would be 3x missile size, which considering it is actually a box launcher rather than a rail is also reasonable,

Sensors as they stand would be reduced in effectiveness by half but I think I would introduce some type of specialised sensor for detecting smaller objects such as missiles and perhaps fighters.

Which still leaves the fact that ships could only store one fourth as many missiles as before. This means less sustained fire or fewer launchers. Therefore missiles need to be much more effective to account for the fact that less of them will be available. I considered making them much faster but that has a wide range of implications. Yes they would be harder to hit but they would also be longer ranged and cover far more ground in a 5 second increment, making area point defence far less useful and sensors even more ineffectivess. There is also the fact that missile combat works fairly well at the moment in terms of point defence. Therefore I think the solution would simply be larger warheads so that the fewer missiles that get through have a similar impact as before. At the moment I am thinking 2.5x or 3x the current warhead size. Although this may appear to make fighters more effective, its not as much of a change as it might seem. Fighters are much larger in v2.6 than v2.5 anyway so a carrier strikegroup would probably have similar firepower. A carrier would also need much more magazine space so the strikegroup would be reduced in size anyway.

This is still just thinking out loud at the moment though,


Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I have modified active sensors so that anything less than 1 HS is detected as 1 HS. This removes some of the issues with changing missile size.

Steve

[Haegan2005]

Well, yes and no. While I am not a naval ship builder.... It is my understanding that a magazine weight is not necessarily related to the number of missiles it can hold. Think of it as a rather specialized cargo hold. Furthermore, a systems weight does not necessarily relate to its size as some amount of volume it it will be empty in order to provide pathways for repair and standard maintenance. A hanger space not only holds its fighters, but missile carts, repair bays, spare parts, etc. A magazine has its missiles packed in like sardines.

However, magazines are 3HS so they should only be able to hold 3x10 = 30 points of missiles and they actually hold 200! So that presents a whole series of problems

[sloanjh]

Well, yes and no. While I am not a naval ship builder.... It is my understanding that a magazine weight is not necessarily related to the number of missiles it can hold. Think of it as a rather specialized cargo hold. Furthermore, a systems weight does not necessarily relate to its size as some amount of volume it it will be empty in order to provide pathways for repair and standard maintenance. A hanger space not only holds its fighters, but missile carts, repair bays, spare parts, etc. A magazine has its missiles packed in like sardines.

However, magazines are 3HS so they should only be able to hold 3x10 = 30 points of missiles and they actually hold 200! So that presents a whole series of problems

Are HS a unit of mass or volume (displacement)?  I think this gets blurred in a lot of ship-design games.  If mass, then a ship with empty magazines (or fuel tanks) should be quicker than when full.

For ships this might not be a big deal (since the overall tonnage is probably a lot greater than the missiles'), but for fighters or GB with external rails the missiles might account a significant fraction of the mass (or volume - they're external).  Do you (Steve) want to make a "loaded" fighter slower than a "clean" one?  This also brings up the question of external (drop) tanks that can be fitted to launch rails.  Or sensor pods.  Or gun pods.  And yes, I admit it, I'm cheating off of modern fighters - LOTS of stuff can be hung off of a hard-point.

John

[Haegan2005]

Thank you. I couldn't think of how to say it.

Are HS a unit of mass or volume (displacement)? I think this gets blurred in a lot of ship-design games.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

However, magazines are 3HS so they should only be able to hold 3x10 = 30 points of missiles and they actually hold 200! So that presents a whole series of problems

Well, yes and no. While I am not a naval ship builder.... It is my understanding that a magazine weight is not necessarily related to the number of missiles it can hold. Think of it as a rather specialized cargo hold. Furthermore, a systems weight does not necessarily relate to its size as some amount of volume it it will be empty in order to provide pathways for repair and standard maintenance. A hanger space not only holds its fighters, but missile carts, repair bays, spare parts, etc. A magazine has its missiles packed in like sardines.

For simplicity, Mass and Size are equal in Aurora. I am basing the size of missiles on the cross-section as detected by active sensors, which is currently 0.1 HS per point of missile size. A magazine is 3 HS, which is thirty times as large as a Size 1 missile so magazines should be able to hold 30 points of missiles, based on current sizes.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Are HS a unit of mass or volume (displacement)?  I think this gets blurred in a lot of ship-design games.  If mass, then a ship with empty magazines (or fuel tanks) should be quicker than when full.

Mass and displacement are equal in Aurora. It just makes things easier from both a mechanics and a visualization perspective. I considered having ships gain speed without missiles, fuel or cargo but it was a lot of work to keep changing the speed every increment and it wouldn't make that much difference except for cargo ships.

For ships this might not be a big deal (since the overall tonnage is probably a lot greater than the missiles'), but for fighters or GB with external rails the missiles might account a significant fraction of the mass (or volume - they're external).  Do you (Steve) want to make a "loaded" fighter slower than a "clean" one?  This also brings up the question of external (drop) tanks that can be fitted to launch rails.  Or sensor pods.  Or gun pods.  And yes, I admit it, I'm cheating off of modern fighters - LOTS of stuff can be hung off of a hard-point.

Its a good point about fighter mass but if I change the rules for fighters I would have to do the same for other ships to maintain consistency. Its also lot easier for players if they know what speed a ship will travel without having to worry about cargo, etc. I think I wrote some technobabble about this a while ago explaining how travelling while phasing into trans-newtonian space (the reason for non-newtonian movement mechanics) is based on displacement of trans-newtonian space rather than mass.

I think I might have to change the name of Launch Rails to Box Launchers. They are enclosed launch tubes rather than a hardpoint on an F-15.

Steve

[Haegan2005]

Does the missile have a drive field and if so, could it be the drive field the sensors are hitting? Going this route would make the actual missile smaller, but allow for the sensors to detect it using the current rule set.

However, magazines are 3HS so they should only be able to hold 3x10 = 30 points of missiles and they actually hold 200! So that presents a whole series of problems

Well, yes and no. While I am not a naval ship builder.... It is my understanding that a magazine weight is not necessarily related to the number of missiles it can hold. Think of it as a rather specialized cargo hold. Furthermore, a systems weight does not necessarily relate to its size as some amount of volume it it will be empty in order to provide pathways for repair and standard maintenance. A hanger space not only holds its fighters, but missile carts, repair bays, spare parts, etc. A magazine has its missiles packed in like sardines.

For simplicity, Mass and Size are equal in Aurora. I am basing the size of missiles on the cross-section as detected by active sensors, which is currently 0.1 HS per point of missile size. A magazine is 3 HS, which is thirty times as large as a Size 1 missile so magazines should be able to hold 30 points of missiles, based on current sizes.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Does the missile have a drive field and if so, could it be the drive field the sensors are hitting? Going this route would make the actual missile smaller, but allow for the sensors to detect it using the current rule set.

There are no drive fields in Aurora. That's a Starfire physics invention I think. However, the change to active sensors means that anything less than 1 HS is detected as 1 HS so smaller missiles are not a problem in terms of detection.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

The can of worms just got a LOT bigger

Lets assume instead that missile engines are 5x power and 10,000x fuel use. That gives the missile an engine power of 2.5, a speed of 12,500 km/s and an endurance of 0.125 days (3 hours) and a range of 135 million kilometers.

Compared to the current range of less than one million kilometers that seems completely ridiculous. However, I then started thinking about comparisons to modern warfare. Lets look at a Tomahawk land-attack missile. It has an endurance of about 3 hours and a range of 2500 km. Same endurance but obviously a much shorter range. However, that range is based on global warfare, not system-wide. The globe is about 40,000 kilometers in circumference whereas the Sol system out to the furthest possible jump points is about six billion kilometers, a difference in scale of 150,000x. If you scale up the Tomahawk's range by 150,000x you get 375 million kilometers. Suddenly the 135m km range missile isn't looking so ridiculous. The AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile has similar capabilities to the Tomahawk while ICBMs have global range

So now that got me thinking why do Aurora missiles have such short range and is it reasonable? The conclusion I came to is that Aurora missiles have ranges not that much greater than beam weapons because I have been playing Starfire for fifteen years and that is how capital missiles work. When I started work on missile design I fell back on familiarity rather than really thinking about how missile warfare in deep space would work. The reality is that if we could build space craft with the capabilities of those in Aurora we probably would be building missiles with endurances measured in hours and ranges in tens of millions of kilometers. If we wanted to shoot at Mars, we could probably do it now although the speeds involved are obviously a lot lower. Now I have really started to think it through, the very short ranges of missiles don't seem realistic at all.

Which then brings me to another interesting thought. Modern warfare is often more about detection than anything else. Once you locate a target, you usually have weapons with sufficient range to attack it. Finding it in the first place and then tracking it with sufficient accuracy to guide a missile is the hard part. Huge weapon ranges don't really do you any good unless you can see the target.

So letting my imagination go for a moment, what if I changed Aurora to that type of model. Its now Harpoon instead of Honor Harrington. Backfires against Carrier Groups and long range missile exchanges between surface action groups. Stealth and scouting becomes a big factor. Missile fire control would become an expensive option to add to active sensors instead of a separate short range system. Given the possible size changes mentioned earlier in this thread, missiles would become larger in terms of magazine space, more expensive and much longer ranged. I would have to add some type of active terminal guidance as a serious option as well as handing off fire control between ships.

In this paradigm, resupply of missiles would become very important because you would only be able to carry 1/4th as many. I imagine beam weapons, torpedoes etc would become the weapon of choice for defending jump points or for long deployments with little support. They would become much more like beam weapons in Honor Harrington where ships clashed at close range. Trying to get stealthy beam ships into close range of missile ships would become a significant tactic, as would running down missile ships that had fired off their limited ordance. It may be that most ships carried a few missiles in Launch Rails in addition to their regular armament. Perhaps I could also allow Launch Rails to be reloaded by ships when they are in orbit of a population with adequate maintenance facilities.

Lots of possibilities but I thought I would await the probably horrified response to this post before going any further

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Just a couple of further thoughts. Using the above changes, it might be possible to allow the creation of very small active sensors that could be added to missiles so they could find their own targets. They would also be resolution based so the seeker heads on missiles designed to hunt large warships would have greater sensor ranges than those going after FACs or fighters. As an example, a race with  active grav sensor strength 21 (Cost 8000 RP) could create a 1 HS active sensor that could track 4000 ton ships at 16,800,000 km. Scaling that to a 1/40th size (1/2 a point of missile size) would give a onboard tracking range of 420,000 km. A 1 missile point sensor (0.05 HS) would be 840,000 km.

Also there is nothing to stop players designing a recon drone on a missile body, using a larger sensor instead of a warhead. This could be fired at the same time to provide final guidance (by highlighting targets for the other missiles) or in a pure recon mode to find out what lay ahead.

Steve

[Shinanygnz]

Oh dear me, what a pickle.

I think you're right on missile ranges.  For realism they should be a lot longer.
Maybe you should be tinkering with ROF too?

Falling back on modern naval tech for analogy, early Tico cruisers had two launchers and about 90 standard missiles.  Later ones have the VLS systems, with approx the same number of missiles.  Recently, a new Sea Sparrow version has been developed and can be "four-packed" into a Mk41 VLS cell instead of a Tomahawk/Harpoon/Standard (nicely matches your existing multi-warhead system).  The Soviets tended to have a bunch of big one shot box launchers for anti-shipping strikes.
So, how about ships with "box launchers" with big anti-shipping/planet missiles, requiring a collier or some similar facility and "downtime" to reload.  Missile magazines then are usually linked to smaller, fast firing anti-missile systems, but you could have them fire less capable (i.e. smaller) anti-ship missiles too if you want to give up the mag space.

To add a "realism" worm, what's to stop me designing a fighter or gunboat sized missile (with shields, armour and a BIG warhead) and carrying it around in a parasite bay?

Stephen

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Oh dear me, what a pickle.

I think you're right on missile ranges.  For realism they should be a lot longer.

Yes, the more I think about it the more the current missile ranges don't make sense compared to the rest of the game.

Maybe you should be tinkering with ROF too?

Falling back on modern naval tech for analogy, early Tico cruisers had two launchers and about 90 standard missiles.  Later ones have the VLS systems, with approx the same number of missiles.  Recently, a new Sea Sparrow version has been developed and can be "four-packed" into a Mk41 VLS cell instead of a Tomahawk/Harpoon/Standard (nicely matches your existing multi-warhead system).  The Soviets tended to have a bunch of big one shot box launchers for anti-shipping strikes.
So, how about ships with "box launchers" with big anti-shipping/planet missiles, requiring a collier or some similar facility and "downtime" to reload.  Missile magazines then are usually linked to smaller, fast firing anti-missile systems, but you could have them fire less capable (i.e. smaller) anti-ship missiles too if you want to give up the mag space.

All the above should be taken care of by the existing missile rules. You can create box launchers of any size at 1/6th normal launcher size in v2.6. They can only be reloaded inside a hangar but I could extend that to either hangars or maintenance facilities equal to ship size or less. There are also slow reload launchers already in v2.5 down to 1/4 normal size that take a long time to reload.

To add a "realism" worm, what's to stop me designing a fighter or gunboat sized missile (with shields, armour and a BIG warhead) and carrying it around in a parasite bay?

Realism-wise probably not much. Within the game mechanics missiles have a maximum size of 24, or 1.08 hull spaces. I am tempted to up that a little to account for serious planet-busters or recon drones.

Steve

[Randy]

These changes to missiles and magazines acutually fit in well with the DCQ concept for reloading.

  If you have the crew, and the reloads, why not allow reloads in space?

I'd add in the restriction that you can't be moving while reloading (or else risk losing some of your precious deck crews...).

Then the single large volley ship design becomes viable.  It just takes a couple days to reload. Instead of a couple weeks/months - if it has to return to base.

  Just a thought  - if you don't allow some form of mobile reloading of box launchers you put a very huge advantage to the defender in combat. As if there already isn't a big one with the planet combat

  Adding in reloading shifts the balance back a bit.