Missile Question

[Kurt (OP)]

Do anti-missiles need a warhead to kill their targets?  If so, does it have to be at least strength 1, or can it be lower?

I know that missiles had to have at least a strength one warhead in the past, but that was before Steve changed to ablative armor.  

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

I don't think that changed to sub-1 point warheads to kill missiles.  AFAIK the new armor only pertains to ships and PDC's not missiles.  Requisite additional warhead strength for missile armor, but you already knew that.

[Charlie Beeler]

hmmm

I just used dedicated counter missiles for the first time in a long while and I think there might be a problem with the missile v missile code.  The counter missiles I used have a 1pt warhead and the targeted missiles have 2pt armor.  I have several instances were a single missile hit would kill a targeted missile.  Missile PD mode was 5v1.

[Charlie Beeler]

Definitely an issue.  Either I don't understand the missile v missile rules or there is a hole in the code.  I just used a 0pt warhead missile to takeout an armored missile.

[Kurt (OP)]

hmmm

I just used dedicated counter missiles for the first time in a long while and I think there might be a problem with the missile v missile code.  The counter missiles I used have a 1pt warhead and the targeted missiles have 2pt armor.  I have several instances were a single missile hit would kill a targeted missile.  Missile PD mode was 5v1.

As I understand it, missile armor does not confer an absolute immunity to equal-damage weapons.  Instead, it gives the missile a chance to survive the hit, with the chance increasing the higher the missile armor is in relation to the damage of the weapon.  

I'm not sure what is happening with the 0 damage warhead anti-missiles you mention in your other post.  I thought that you had to have at least a 1 pt  warhead on an anti-missile.  

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

hmmm

I just used dedicated counter missiles for the first time in a long while and I think there might be a problem with the missile v missile code.  The counter missiles I used have a 1pt warhead and the targeted missiles have 2pt armor.  I have several instances were a single missile hit would kill a targeted missile.  Missile PD mode was 5v1.

As I understand it, missile armor does not confer an absolute immunity to equal-damage weapons.  Instead, it gives the missile a chance to survive the hit, with the chance increasing the higher the missile armor is in relation to the damage of the weapon.  

I'm not sure what is happening with the 0 damage warhead anti-missiles you mention in your other post.  I thought that you had to have at least a 1 pt  warhead on an anti-missile.  

Kurt

That was my understanding as well.  One thing I noticed was that point defense laser fire was sometimes absorbed by the armor, missile hits don't appear to ever be absorbed.  That's what led me to attempt a 0pt warhead on an counter-missile.  Size 1 missile with no warhead, .5 space engine, .25 space fuel cell, and .25 space agility.  Cheap and segnificantly out ranges the fire control (5m km) and active sensors (4.8m km) I'm using.  Vary effective.

[Kurt (OP)]

hmmm

I just used dedicated counter missiles for the first time in a long while and I think there might be a problem with the missile v missile code.  The counter missiles I used have a 1pt warhead and the targeted missiles have 2pt armor.  I have several instances were a single missile hit would kill a targeted missile.  Missile PD mode was 5v1.

As I understand it, missile armor does not confer an absolute immunity to equal-damage weapons.  Instead, it gives the missile a chance to survive the hit, with the chance increasing the higher the missile armor is in relation to the damage of the weapon.  

I'm not sure what is happening with the 0 damage warhead anti-missiles you mention in your other post.  I thought that you had to have at least a 1 pt  warhead on an anti-missile.  

Kurt

That was my understanding as well.  One thing I noticed was that point defense laser fire was sometimes absorbed by the armor, missile hits don't appear to ever be absorbed.  That's what led me to attempt a 0pt warhead on an counter-missile.  Size 1 missile with no warhead, .5 space engine, .25 space fuel cell, and .25 space agility.  Cheap and segnificantly out ranges the fire control (5m km) and active sensors (4.8m km) I'm using.  Vary effective.

Just so I understand, did every counter-missile that hit destroy the targeted missile?  Or did some counter-missiles hit but fail to destroy their targets?

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

Just so I understand, did every counter-missile that hit destroy the targeted missile?  Or did some counter-missiles hit but fail to destroy their targets?

Every hit destroyed a missile.

Event log extract

Code: [Select]

Salvo of 5x AMM-2 has intercepted its target. Chance To Hit 39%: (Missile Speed 24000 km/s / Target Speed 16000 km/s) x Missile Agility 26 x GradeBonus 0%
Missile #1 Missed
AMM-2 hit the target and destroyed an enemy missile.
Missile #3 Missed
AMM-2 hit the target and destroyed an enemy missile.
Missile #5 Missed

Salvo of 5x AMM-2 has intercepted its target. Chance To Hit 39%: (Missile Speed 24000 km/s / Target Speed 16000 km/s) x Missile Agility 26 x GradeBonus 0%
Missile #1 Missed
Missile #2 Missed
AMM-2 hit the target and destroyed an enemy missile.
Missile #4 Missed
Missile #5 Missed


[Brian Neumann]

Some where in the mass of postings is Steve's original post on how the missile armor worked.  As I recall It only applied to beam weapons.  Any missile that hit another missile was supposed to auto kill both missiles.  Sort of like in Star Fleet Battle's.  The missile was however supposed to have a 1 point warhead as a minimum to qualify.

Brian

[Steve Walmsley]

Some where in the mass of postings is Steve's original post on how the missile armor worked.  As I recall It only applied to beam weapons.  Any missile that hit another missile was supposed to auto kill both missiles.  Sort of like in Star Fleet Battle's.  The missile was however supposed to have a 1 point warhead as a minimum to qualify.

That sums it up well. The armour on missiles reduces the chance of a beam weapon kill but does not affect missiles. A better name than armour might be more appropriate as well. Does v3.1 have "ablative armour" on the missile design window or have I only added that for v3.2?

The formula for beam kills vs missiles is Weapon Damage / (Missile Armour + Weapon Damage)) * 100. So a 1 point hit on a missile with 1 armour would be 50%. A 3 point hit on a missile with 2 armour would be 60%.

Missiles do need a 1 point warhead according to the rules but after Charlie reported this I looked and the code doesn't check. So 0 point warheads will work in v3.1 but I have fixed it for v3.2 (which won't be long now).

Steve

[Kurt (OP)]

Some where in the mass of postings is Steve's original post on how the missile armor worked.  As I recall It only applied to beam weapons.  Any missile that hit another missile was supposed to auto kill both missiles.  Sort of like in Star Fleet Battle's.  The missile was however supposed to have a 1 point warhead as a minimum to qualify.

That sums it up well. The armour on missiles reduces the chance of a beam weapon kill but does not affect missiles. A better name than armour might be more appropriate as well. Does v3.1 have "ablative armour" on the missile design window or have I only added that for v3.2?

The formula for beam kills vs missiles is Weapon Damage / (Missile Armour + Weapon Damage)) * 100. So a 1 point hit on a missile with 1 armour would be 50%. A 3 point hit on a missile with 2 armour would be 60%.

Missiles do need a 1 point warhead according to the rules but after Charlie reported this I looked and the code doesn't check. So 0 point warheads will work in v3.1 but I have fixed it for v3.2 (which won't be long now).

Steve

BTW: 3.1 does say "Ablative Armor".

From your statement above, I take it missile armor only affects beam weapons.  Including gauss and rail guns (which are kind of in the beam weapon category)?  Given the fact that anti-missiles need a warhead, which means that they rely on an explosion to kill their target, rather than kinetic impact, I would think ablative armor might work against missiles as well, although not against weapons requiring impact like gauss and rail guns.  

Another thing about armor, I'd like to suggest a change so that increasing armor technology increases the effectiveness of armor on a missile.  Exactly like missile engine tech increases the effectiveness of missile engines per space devoted to them.  This could either be based solely on the race's armor tech, or you could make a special missile armor tech line.

Kurt

PS: I had a whole long post planned about changes I'd like to see in the way missiles are designed and modifications to the various things that go into missiles, but when I checked I realized that you were a step ahead of me.  

[Steve Walmsley]

From your statement above, I take it missile armor only affects beam weapons.  Including gauss and rail guns (which are kind of in the beam weapon category)?  

Yes, that's correct, except for meson cannon which are unaffected by missile armour.

Given the fact that anti-missiles need a warhead, which means that they rely on an explosion to kill their target, rather than kinetic impact, I would think ablative armor might work against missiles as well, although not against weapons requiring impact like gauss and rail guns.  

Working against missiles sounds reasonable and I have added that to v3.2. While I understand the logic behind missile armour not working against kinetic weapons, I am concerned that if it is ineffective against meson cannon, gauss cannon and rail guns, there would be little point in having armour at all. The ability of meson cannon to ignore armour gives them an advantage over other point defence weapons that are better in other respects.

Another thing about armor, I'd like to suggest a change so that increasing armor technology increases the effectiveness of armor on a missile.  Exactly like missile engine tech increases the effectiveness of missile engines per space devoted to them.  This could either be based solely on the race's armor tech, or you could make a special missile armor tech line.

Yes, that's a good idea. I need to think about how I implement it.

Steve

[Erik L]

Another thing about armor, I'd like to suggest a change so that increasing armor technology increases the effectiveness of armor on a missile.  Exactly like missile engine tech increases the effectiveness of missile engines per space devoted to them.  This could either be based solely on the race's armor tech, or you could make a special missile armor tech line.

Yes, that's a good idea. I need to think about how I implement it.

Steve

I'd think something like at base tech 1 MSP = 1 pt of armor. As armor tech increases (either racial or specific armor tech), then that ratio increases.