Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => VB6 Mechanics => Topic started by: Maltay on November 29, 2012, 06:45:43 AM
-
First, I may have the mechanics wrong. So, please confirm or correct.
As I recall, when defending against incoming ASM, the mechanic behind your FC targeting the incoming ASM is that you need one FC to target each wave of incoming ASM. Each wave of incoming ASM is essentially the number of ASM launchers assigned to a single FC. So, figure 20 ASM launchers, four FC, and the 20 incoming ASM are divided into four ASM waves, each of which needs to be targeted with a separate FC. You can then assign any number of AMM launchers to your FC and take out a percentage of the incoming ASM. In fact, you can assign multiple FC to target each incoming wave of ASM.
Assuming I get a confirmation rather than a correction.
When I attack, I could have a vessel with 50 ASM launchers and 25 FC so that each FC is assigned to a single ASM launcher. This then creates 25 waves of ASM where each wave of ASM has a size of two ASM. All 25 ASM waves would arrive on target at roughly the same time. The defender then needs 25 FC to target each of the 25 ASM waves. Would this be an effective way of overwhelming defenses?
-
Yes and No.
Yes, your correct about "salvo" assignments.
The No part is a little bit subjective. It is dependent on how the OPFOR has designed AMM coverage. If the coverage scheme only allows a small number of intercept salvos you've actually got it correct. But... if the coverage scheme is designed for multiple standoff intercept salvos the ability to saturate the defenses becomes much more difficult. At that point your offensive ROF vs defensive ROF comes into play.
-
The No part is a little bit subjective. It is dependent on how the OPFOR has designed AMM coverage. If the coverage scheme only allows a small number of intercept salvos you've actually got it correct. But... if the coverage scheme is designed for multiple standoff intercept salvos the ability to saturate the defenses becomes much more difficult. At that point your offensive ROF vs defensive ROF comes into play.
Can you give me an example of a PD scheme this would work against vs. one it would not work against? Basically, where overwhelming with more FC makes more sense than overwhelming with more ASM?
-
If your target is set up to launch amm at an extended range and get multiple salvoes off it makes saturating thier fire control much harder. Assuming a 5 second cycle time on thier amm launchers, 10 launchers and 2 fire control set up with a maximum range of 4m km (amm missiles having 30,000km speed). Incomming missiles are flying 30,000km/s which gives them a closing speed of 150,000km every 5 second cycle. This works out to the defenders getting off at least 25 amm salvoes. If thier missiles have a 25% rating then each fire control salvo is going to destroy 1 incomming missile. They have the time to engage 50 or more salvoes. It doesn't really matter whether you have 25 salvoes of 2 missiles or 5 salvoes of 10 missiles. Their amm will kill the same number of incomming missiles. What you have paid however is having 20 extra fire control, if you figure that 1 launcher is 2-3 fire control in size then on the same size ship you could instead have added 5 more launchers. Total number of missiles penetrating the amm point defense would then change from 0-5(assuming some leakers) to 5-10(also assuming some leakers).
For the other scenario lets assume they can only fire 1.5m km. Then they would only be getting 10 cycles of fire for a total of 20 amm salvoes. If you have 2 big waves comming in then they have no problem as they just keep firing the whole way in, and their are no wasted missiles. On the other hand of you have 25 waves of 2 missiles they can only engage 20 of them, and their is a chance that there will be wasted missiles if the amm get lucky and kill a salvoe before all of the amm in salvo have engaged those incomming missiles. In additition there will be 5 salvoes that were never fired upon at all. Total missiles getting through is probably 25 from the big sized salvoes and 30 from the lots of small salvoes (10 never engaged and 20 that were engaged but evaded the amm).
A final note of importance is while the amm fire control is a lot harder to saturate, the final defense beam weapons are not as hard. The beam weapons for the most part are only going to get 1 chance to shoot at incomming missiles. If their are more salvoes of missiles than point defense fire control then some of those missiles are not going to be engaged at all.
A couple of ideas on getting missiles through a heavy point defense setup.
1.) Carry some long range smaller missiles to shoot in front of your first real salvo. You can carry 4 salvoes worth of size 1 missiles for 1 salvo of your size 4 asm. As long as they have about the same range and speed they will eat up the first defending salvoes. This may let your heavier missiles get closer before being shot at.
2.) Having a layered defense with plenty of pd beam weapons can take a lot of the heat off of your amm missiles. Reduce the incomming asm's to a number your beam weapons can handle and you might have a few salvoes of those small missiles to fire at the enemy ships. They are going to engage them just as much as the heavier asm's thereby giving your asm's some covering fire.
3.)With capital ships it is worth it to put a few amm launchers and a single fire control for point defense. If you don't need them to protect your ships then you have a much higher rate of fire launcher to use to give that cover fire for your primary asm's
Good Luck
Brian
-
Brian covered most of it quite well.
The kicker the first scheme he detailed is ROF. If the attacker has a ROF that does not allow the subsequent salvos to be engaged at full range it becomes a game of who has the deeper magazine and/or ability to rapidly reload.
-
As too how to get more missiles through heavy point defenses (both AMM and beams) there a couple of things to try.
Obviously smaller missiles with higher ROF.
Or less obviously, larger missiles with ECM and armor. The ECM reduces the range that AMM's can engage at reduces beam performance. The Armor reduces both AMM and beam performance. There is of course some drawbacks to this. Chiefly reduced msp for primary systems (engine,warhead,fuel,agility).
-
Thank you for the detailed explanations, much appreciated.
-
Another alternative in the current version is to try for multi-stage missiles. The second stage (which actually hits the target) is some number of size 1 missiles. These should be as fast as possible, and have a moderately decent standoff range (about the same range as you expect an enemy AMM to have). Take the following example from my current game:
SVM-1 Striker
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 144000 km/s Engine Endurance: 4 minutes Range: 31.1m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.114 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 114,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.9812
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1440% 3k km/s 480% 5k km/s 288% 10k km/s 144%
Materials Required: 1x Tritanium 0.0672x Boronide 0.114x Uridium 1.8x Gallicite Fuel x162.5
Development Cost for Project: 298RPThe engine is a .6 Solid-core antimatter cranked up to 6x. My standard AMM uses the same engine, but with all but one of the warhead points replaced with agility. This is actually rather scary, as I don't really have the capability to defend myself against my own missiles. OTOH, I don't think I'm going to run into many people who are ahead of me.
You then package some number of these missiles onto a booster with a slower engine, and fire them at long range. The missiles (hopefully) separate at the edge of AMM range, so the booster doesn't get shot down with them still aboard. The missiles themselves are (hopefully) fast enough to avoid the worst of the AMM and PD fire. Countermeasures involve long-range AMMs and sensors, to hit the boosters before they separate. I use size 4 boosters, partially to get decent salvo sizes and partially to keep detection range down.
A lot of my ships only have Size 1 launchers. They get the missiles themselves, along with a long-range version that's slightly slower.
-
Just a small point of order. The research for the tech going into that missile engine is over 1 million and 9 levels into the available 12 levels of engine tech. (power plant tech is 360,000pts, engine tech is 605,000pts, and boost is 90,000pts)
Another alternative in the current version is to try for multi-stage missiles. The second stage (which actually hits the target) is some number of size 1 missiles. These should be as fast as possible, and have a moderately decent standoff range (about the same range as you expect an enemy AMM to have). Take the following example from my current game:
SVM-1 Striker
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 144000 km/s Engine Endurance: 4 minutes Range: 31.1m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.114 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 114,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.9812
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1440% 3k km/s 480% 5k km/s 288% 10k km/s 144%
Materials Required: 1x Tritanium 0.0672x Boronide 0.114x Uridium 1.8x Gallicite Fuel x162.5
Development Cost for Project: 298RPThe engine is a .6 Solid-core antimatter cranked up to 6x. My standard AMM uses the same engine, but with all but one of the warhead points replaced with agility. This is actually rather scary, as I don't really have the capability to defend myself against my own missiles. OTOH, I don't think I'm going to run into many people who are ahead of me.
You then package some number of these missiles onto a booster with a slower engine, and fire them at long range. The missiles (hopefully) separate at the edge of AMM range, so the booster doesn't get shot down with them still aboard. The missiles themselves are (hopefully) fast enough to avoid the worst of the AMM and PD fire. Countermeasures involve long-range AMMs and sensors, to hit the boosters before they separate. I use size 4 boosters, partially to get decent salvo sizes and partially to keep detection range down.
A lot of my ships only have Size 1 launchers. They get the missiles themselves, along with a long-range version that's slightly slower.
-
Just a small point of order. The research for the tech going into that missile engine is over 1 million and 9 levels into the available 12 levels of engine tech. (power plant tech is 360,000pts, engine tech is 605,000pts, and boost is 90,000pts)
This is true, and I was using it as an illustration of the concept. However, the same principles should apply to any tech level (provided you have a decent multiplier for your max engine power). Small missiles of short to medium range and very high speed on top of larger boosters of long range and low to medium speed. The biggest possible problem is lack of warhead power. OTOH, the missile is very difficult to intercept. My standard AAM has a 54% hit chance, and coupled with my standard fire control, it will be able to get 17 salvos out from detection to interception. This means that for a given launcher, it can intercept 9.18 missiles, assuming ideal conditions. Things like overkill and salvo sizes and FC assignment sizes not matching up would cut the number significantly. All in all, it's the best thing I can think of. It even works well from an economics perspective. The AMMs cost basically the same as the missile, so the defender is spending more than the attacker, provided the boosters aren't too expensive.
-
Sorry, your not getting that kind of intercept chance against missiles without a segnificant tech advantage. When there is near parity of tech you'll be hard pressed to get an AMM that has a realistic 20% vs ASM's.
If you disagree please post spec's used for both the targeted ASM and the interceptor AMM.
-
Sorry, your not getting that kind of intercept chance against missiles without a segnificant tech advantage. When there is near parity of tech you'll be hard pressed to get an AMM that has a realistic 20% vs ASM's.
If you disagree please post spec's used for both the targeted ASM and the interceptor AMM.
Actually, AMMs get better relative to ASMs as tech gets better because you can fit more agility into the missile for a given amount of space, and less space is taken up by the warhead.
Case in point (actual missiles used in my example):
SVM-1 Striker
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 144000 km/s Engine Endurance: 4 minutes Range: 31.1m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.114 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 114,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.9812
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1440% 3k km/s 480% 5k km/s 288% 10k km/s 144%
Materials Required: 1x Tritanium 0.0672x Boronide 0.114x Uridium 1.8x Gallicite Fuel x162.5
Development Cost for Project: 298RP
SIM-2 Spartan
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 54
Speed: 144000 km/s Engine Endurance: 4 minutes Range: 31.1m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.922
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 7776% 3k km/s 2592% 5k km/s 1555.2% 10k km/s 777.6%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 2.672x Gallicite Fuel x162.5
Development Cost for Project: 292RPManeuver rating on the Spartan is 54, which means it has a 54% chance against a target at the same speed. Given that they have the same engine, that's a given here.
-
I went farther, and created the ultimate antimissile. I set it up with end-level tech, and it can literally intercept any other missile with 100% certainty. It also has the maximum range possible while meeting that criteria.
Ultimate AMM:
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 100
Speed: 299000 km/s Engine Endurance: 12 minutes Range: 213.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 5.8
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 29900% 3k km/s 9900% 5k km/s 5980% 10k km/s 2990%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 5.55x Gallicite Fuel x354
Development Cost for Project: 580RPNote that missile speed is capped at 299,000 km/s (which is just short of C). The engine is power 15, so it should theoretically make 300,000 km/s (C).
-
The biggest problem multistage missiles have is the fact that they tend to have rather anemic warheads spread out over multiple impact zones, while Aurora is predisposed to making the biggest hits you can with missiles because they are so bad at penetrating armour. Sandpapering the enemy to dead works, but it tends to mean throwing lots and lots of missiles at them, as it tends to degrade armour equally across the entire ship.
Of course, if you can squeeze 3-5 size 1 high speed ASMs into a size 6 multistage missile, that probably isn't going to matter all that much, as they are just as hard to detect for the enemy, and he has to deal with several times the number of targets he expected while also having lower intercept chances because of the high speed.
Also, Byron, the speed of light is also slightly less than 300 000km/s, so any vehicle that manages 300 000km/s is actually outspeeding light.
-
Also, Byron, the speed of light is also slightly less than 300 000km/s, so any vehicle that manages 300 000km/s is actually outspeeding light.
It's common practice to use 3e8 m/s as the value for the speed of light anywhere accuracy isn't really critical (like online science discussions), as that's accurate to three significant figures (3.00e8 m/s is an accurate value). In previous versions of Aurora, the cap on missile speed was actually 300,000 km/s, and the maximum range for beam weapons is based upon that value. So points for pedantism, but it doesn't really change anything.
-
Byron that qualifies as "significant tech advantage".
This is true, and I was using it as an illustration of the concept. However, the same principles should apply to any tech level
Which is not true at "any tech level". The common or average power tech in most discussions revolve around 3 to 4 levels into the tech progression not 9 to 10. At those tech levels getting an unmodified probability against expected ASM speeds at or above 20% is problematic at best.
As far as using multi-munition missiles goes, they would actually be less effective than using smaller missiles in high ROF launchers. But it is an option for fleets that need to respond to thick defenses without major refits.
-
Byron that qualifies as "significant tech advantage".
Which is not true at "any tech level". The common or average power tech in most discussions revolve around 3 to 4 levels into the tech progression not 9 to 10. At those tech levels getting an unmodified probability against expected ASM speeds at or above 20% is problematic at best.
So that means that going for higher speed ASMs to penetrate defenses is pointless because existing systems are sufficient? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
As far as using multi-munition missiles goes, they would actually be less effective than using smaller missiles in high ROF launchers. But it is an option for fleets that need to respond to thick defenses without major refits.
Yes, but only so long as you ignore the element of range. The basis of the concept is that it allows you to hit the enemy from long range, yet using high-speed final stages to penetrate the defenses.
-
Yes, but only so long as you ignore the element of range. The basis of the concept is that it allows you to hit the enemy from long range, yet using high-speed final stages to penetrate the defenses.
Yes, but you lose one of the two factors of N in the N^2 advantage that size-1 launchers have over size-N launchers in the number of missiles confronting the defences over an extended period of time, plus there's a further overhead from the first stage. This pops you back to Brian's original analysis, albeit with higher-speed (but even fewer) size-1 missiles.
John
-
Yes, but you lose one of the two factors of N in the N^2 advantage that size-1 launchers have over size-N launchers in the number of missiles confronting the defences over an extended period of time, plus there's a further overhead from the first stage. This pops you back to Brian's original analysis, albeit with higher-speed (but even fewer) size-1 missiles.
John
This is true. It's not perfect, but I decided to try to look for penetration of defenses instead of throwing mass quantities of missiles at them. Backed up by the fact that I also have fairly large salvo sizes in the ships, so the target gets hit with a lot of missiles at once.
-
So that means that going for higher speed ASMs to penetrate defenses is pointless because existing systems are sufficient? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Not at all. I was taking issue with the implication that at any tech level there can be an expectation of 50%+ intecept chances. If this is not what you driving at my appologies.
Yes, but only so long as you ignore the element of range. The basis of the concept is that it allows you to hit the enemy from long range, yet using high-speed final stages to penetrate the defenses.
Some of that will be dependent on seperation range vs designed defensive intercept ranges. Too short a seperation range and the bus is vulnerable to intercept. Too long and the defender may have enough range to negate the intended saturation.
In this case ROF is actually more important in penitrating defenses. Specificly the offensive ROF. By having an offense ROF that is close or in parity with defensive ROF you reduce the number of additional defensive salvos vs offensive salvos.
Something I need to add here. I play less with AI NPR's. This means that I tend to face much more flexible defenses.
-
Not at all. I was taking issue with the implication that at any tech level there can be an expectation of 50%+ intecept chances. If this is not what you driving at my appologies.
OK. I think I've proven that at higher tech levels, it is possible to expect that at higher tech levels. Not at any tech level, which means that this approach has an optimum point at which it's too fast for beams to effectively compensate, but the agility tech isn't good enough for great hit rates. I'm not going to work it out, though, as it depends on the defender.
Some of that will be dependent on seperation range vs designed defensive intercept ranges. Too short a seperation range and the bus is vulnerable to intercept. Too long and the defender may have enough range to negate the intended saturation.
Not sure what this means. The first part is correct, but the second doesn't make sense. I assume that you mean the spacing between salvoes will be too large so the defender can engage them one at a time. This is incorrect, as the spacing between the warheads from successive salvoes is based solely on ROF and the relative speeds of the boosters and warheads.
In this case ROF is actually more important in penitrating defenses. Specificly the offensive ROF. By having an offense ROF that is close or in parity with defensive ROF you reduce the number of additional defensive salvos vs offensive salvos.
I'm of the big salvo school, and prefer to rely on shortend reaction times and low intercept chances. While this is another way to do it, I just haven't found it that effective.
Something I need to add here. I play less with AI NPR's. This means that I tend to face much more flexible defenses.
That might make a significant difference. Pretty much all of my high-level games (of which this is the latest) are single-player.
-
OK. I think I've proven that at higher tech levels, it is possible to expect that at higher tech levels. Not at any tech level, which means that this approach has an optimum point at which it's too fast for beams to effectively compensate, but the agility tech isn't good enough for great hit rates. I'm not going to work it out, though, as it depends on the defender.
Actually no. Whether missile speed is beyond BFC ability to track is dependent on what tech is available. Yes it is possible at high tech levels to effectively engage that 299k/kps missile. With creative application of tech I've found nothing in Aurora that can't be countered eventually.
Not sure what this means. The first part is correct, but the second doesn't make sense. I assume that you mean the spacing between salvoes will be too large so the defender can engage them one at a time. This is incorrect, as the spacing between the warheads from successive salvoes is based solely on ROF and the relative speeds of the boosters and warheads.
You misunderstand, not sequential salvos. With sufficient defensive range the submunitions(warhead) may not be in great enough quantity to saturate defenses.
I'm of the big salvo school, and prefer to rely on shortend reaction times and low intercept chances. While this is another way to do it, I just haven't found it that effective.
Short reaction time only comes into play if the defender is relying on short range intercepts and final fire. Conversely, big salvos can be chewed up by defenses designed for extended range intercepts and possible secondary defensive salvos with final fire for leakers. Low intercepts can be offset with 4v1 or 5v1 missile settings and missile tracking bonus for beams.
That might make a significant difference. Pretty much all of my high-level games (of which this is the latest) are single-player.
All of my games are single-player. I tend to choose human controlled NPR's over AI. Aurora did not start with an AI (and Starfire Assistant never had one). Yes, it means that I really know what I'm facing. But I've GM'd for many years knowing what my players had. Perhaps I have a suppress case of multiple personality!!
-
In my experience any salvo lower than 10 missiles is doomed. Taking into consideration the FC/launcher size ratio means I never have more than 1 FC for every 10 launchers - and most of the time the extra FCs are lower range since by the time I probed the enemy's defenses they are most probably quite deep inside my firing envelope.
So far the best way I found to overwhelm any point and interceptor defense is with a mix of missile platforms ( 500-1kt , no engines , 1 tractor beam and a lot of box launchers) and ship-board boxes for the first salvo , with time-on-target attacks from the rest of the dedicated missile ships.
What does that mean ? with some modest tech and not that many ships (2-3 platform carriers , 3-4 missile ships , boxes on the non-combatants) you can deliver up to 500 or more size 5 missiles. I have not encountered any missile defense that could counter it coming from the ai - and it wiped half a fleet when playing a multi-empire setup.
Adding 1 unit of armor to those missiles will make them even more effective - there's just no way the enemy can launch enough AMMs to counter all of them.
You can consider sending a salvo or two of heavy armored big missiles 5 sec ahead - if you use ecm on the rest of the salvos it will drain AMM stocks , generate lots of missed interdictions and , if you are lucky , distract the final defensive fire enough for the massive cloud of death behind to hit :)
Now on the intercept side :
- AMMs CAN have 50% chance against other missiles once you reach inertial fusion and l4 agility/warhead. And so far it seems a faster AMM is more efficient than a agile one since you can start intercepting at a higher range - which means your launchers will not concentrate on a missile at 10s while there are a few billion more just behind.
- It's better to have your AMM ships behind the fleet , using small platforms for them ( corvettes/frigs , up to 4k). If you also put a PD element in front of the big bathtubs in your fleet (about as far as twice their effective range) you can also aid the AMM FCs and reduce the hits.
-
Actually no. Whether missile speed is beyond BFC ability to track is dependent on what tech is available. Yes it is possible at high tech levels to effectively engage that 299k/kps missile. With creative application of tech I've found nothing in Aurora that can't be countered eventually.
I've seen in my games (which may be entirely different from your games, granted) that beam weapons become somewhat less effective later in the game for defensive purposes. AMMs generally pick up the slack.
You misunderstand, not sequential salvos. With sufficient defensive range the submunitions(warhead) may not be in great enough quantity to saturate defenses.
Ah. Too much stuff put into range doesn't leave enough for other jobs, so either the submunition grows, or the performance goes down.
Short reaction time only comes into play if the defender is relying on short range intercepts and final fire. Conversely, big salvos can be chewed up by defenses designed for extended range intercepts and possible secondary defensive salvos with final fire for leakers. Low intercepts can be offset with 4v1 or 5v1 missile settings and missile tracking bonus for beams.
That's not the case. A missile that's closing twice as fast is something like four times harder for AMM fire to intercept, as you only get half the number of shots, and the shots you do get have half the chance of hitting. The same applies to beam weapons, except that the penalty to hit might be somewhat lower depending on the details of fire control.
On the other hand, you are inflicting virtual attrition on yourself, either in numbers of missiles or in the cost and warhead departments. It's a tradeoff, but shortening the time the defenses have to engage the missile can hardly be said to be irrelevant.
All of my games are single-player. I tend to choose human controlled NPR's over AI. Aurora did not start with an AI (and Starfire Assistant never had one). Yes, it means that I really know what I'm facing. But I've GM'd for many years knowing what my players had. Perhaps I have a suppress case of multiple personality!!
Poor choice of words on my part. At higher levels, I go for NPRs with AI. At lower levels, multiple human races can be fun.
-
I'd have replied sooner, but I was dealing with the loss of a close personal friend over the weekend.
That's not the case. A missile that's closing twice as fast is something like four times harder for AMM fire to intercept, as you only get half the number of shots, and the shots you do get have half the chance of hitting.
That's not something you can categorically say without knowing that you have that kind of tech advantage. And if you have that kind of tech edge then you don't need use multi-munition missiles to punch through the defenses.
The same applies to beam weapons, except that the penalty to hit might be somewhat lower depending on the details of fire control.
Again, this is dependent on the tech available to the defender.
On the other hand, you are inflicting virtual attrition on yourself, either in numbers of missiles or in the cost and warhead departments. It's a tradeoff, but shortening the time the defenses have to engage the missile can hardly be said to be irrelevant.
Never said irrelevant. I said negated, as in removed from the equation. If, and it is if, the separation range is set short enough that the AMM PD suites have very little time to react, And the AMM PD Suites are designed for extended range intercept, the delivery bus is vulnerable to intercept prior to release making any advantage built into sub-munitions unrealized.
The best option is to hope you know, or guess correctly, what the OPFOR's designed intercept range is. With this you can set your separation range just outside this range. This does two things. 1) Causes the OPFOR to waste AMM's on what functionally become decoys 2) reduced the number of AMM's available to intercept the real attack missiles.
In the end I find it's usually a better option to go with smaller ASM's that have no more than a 30 second ROF, 25% of MSP to warhead, and a balance of engine and fuel for a favorable missile speed and range. Favorable is subjective to each player. At an individual ship level this looks expensive logistical, but once you consider squadron and fleet level the benefits add up in a hurry.
-
I'd have replied sooner, but I was dealing with the loss of a close personal friend over the weekend.
My condolences.
That's not something you can categorically say without knowing that you have that kind of tech advantage. And if you have that kind of tech edge then you don't need use multi-munition missiles to punch through the defenses.
Strictly speaking, it is true in all cases. It may not be relevant, but it is true. (Going from 200% hit chance to 100% hit chance is cutting the hit chance in half. It doesn't matter, but it does cut the rate.)
Never said irrelevant. I said negated, as in removed from the equation. If, and it is if, the separation range is set short enough that the AMM PD suites have very little time to react, And the AMM PD Suites are designed for extended range intercept, the delivery bus is vulnerable to intercept prior to release making any advantage built into sub-munitions unrealized.
What? That's not what I meant. I was referring to the fact that a faster missile will cross the engagement window more quickly, with all the benefits that entials. If nothing else, the defender has less time to get tracking bonuses.
The best option is to hope you know, or guess correctly, what the OPFOR's designed intercept range is. With this you can set your separation range just outside this range. This does two things. 1) Causes the OPFOR to waste AMM's on what functionally become decoys 2) reduced the number of AMM's available to intercept the real attack missiles.
???That's what I said at the beginning of the thread.
In the end I find it's usually a better option to go with smaller ASM's that have no more than a 30 second ROF, 25% of MSP to warhead, and a balance of engine and fuel for a favorable missile speed and range. Favorable is subjective to each player. At an individual ship level this looks expensive logistical, but once you consider squadron and fleet level the benefits add up in a hurry.
Actually, favorable is reasonably objective. There is an optimum engine/fuel configuration for a given space/weight of propulsion. Of the propulsion .2391 should be fuel and .7609 should be engine. This gives you the best range for a set speed, or the best speed for a set range. It doesn't work in all cases, as the model assumes that power level can be scaled infinitely.
-
In my opinion, when you play human vs. human all number crunching gets thrown out the nearest airlock. Sure, there are some optimum values where you can find the best performance of propulsion versus fuel. But if you have a human on the other side and you always go for the optimized values you will surely be outplayed. Perhaps someone with lower speed but much better range and thus you never get to fire etc..
I recently experimented with playing multiple factions and have no AI in my game except for precursor races and I must say that fleets look completely different. Scouting and the hide and seek game suddenly become so much more important as is diverting resources to it.
When it comes to missiles and overpowering the opponent it highly depends on what type of defences they have and the composition of ships. If you are forced to shoot your missiles at you enemy's big cruiser with deep armour, shields and dozens of CIWS, he has cloaked destroyers as escorts. Then, any type of missile attack can become troublesome to say the least. What if this is just the bait and not the real fleet which is equipped with really long range missiles placed elsewhere, the cruiser just act as the active component of the fleet or perhaps not even that?!?
Overcoming the defences of the enemy is knowing what defences they have and bring adequate forces to deal with them. Do they mainly rely on AMM launchers, pd defences, shields or a combination. It is all relevant to how you approach the situation. Of course tech difference is also a major factor as always, but given equal tech levels means that knowing the enemies defences is step one to overwhelm them.
In one game I had a cruiser that easily could take about 30-35 missiles with PD alone at ION tech level, this was not even considering the ships powerful shields. To overcome its defences you needed high number of missiles in each wave or many very small salvoes but it was possible, but you could throw any number of three ten salvoes as you wished and it would never bring the ship down.
You also need to factor in how well AMM, PD and shields (and thick armour) work together as one very dynamic defensive system. AMM will reduce incoming salvoes to a reasonable level while PD and shields do the rest.
The way I see it there is no one way to beat an opponent. An alpha strike might very well just be too weak (enemy have massive shields and armour as an example) and leave you wide open for a counter attack. Many prolonged salvoes could easily be chewed up with the right set of defences.
So, know your enemy and their defensive capabilities and exploit their weaknesses is the most efficient way to deal with them. At least, that is my opinion.
-
In my opinion, when you play human vs. human all number crunching gets thrown out the nearest airlock. Sure, there are some optimum values where you can find the best performance of propulsion versus fuel. But if you have a human on the other side and you always go for the optimized values you will surely be outplayed. Perhaps someone with lower speed but much better range and thus you never get to fire etc..
Nope, the optimum engine/fuel ratio holds for all cases. What you chose to set as your fixed value is up to you. To clarify, the 3.1 to 1 engine to fuel ratio will get you the best missile range for a given speed and amount of engine, or the best missile speed for a given amount of engine and a given range. (Assuming that there is only one engine, and that there are no limits on the power multiplier. Things like AMMs often can't optimize and achieve the results they need.) If you want long range, go for the ratio, and set your power multiplier low.
I can't disagree with you on the overall aspects of human vs. human PD, but don't misunderstand how number-crunching can help.
-
Yes... you are absolutely right in that. No need to loose on speed for a set range that you want. I didn't actually catch that in your post the first time around. :)
-
Yes... you are absolutely right in that. No need to loose on speed for a set range that you want. I didn't actually catch that in your post the first time around. :)
Unless you need the space for warhead....
John