Missile Design -again!-

[jseah (OP)]

Code: [Select]

Hosho class Frigate    6,000 tons     132 Crew     1149.25 BP      TCS 120  TH 624  EM 0
5200 km/s     Armour 4-29     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 14     PPV 13.25
Maint Life 2.44 Years     MSP 479    AFR 72%    IFR 1%    1YR 111    5YR 1658    Max Repair 312 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 534   

624 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 624    Fuel Use 80.93%    Signature 624    Exp 13%
Fuel Capacity 540,000 Litres    Range 20.0 billion km   (44 days at full power)

Size 1 Missile Launcher (5)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 5
Size 5 Missile Launcher (33% Reduction) (5)    Missile Size 5    Rate of Fire 500
Missile Fire Control FC92-R20 (1)     Range 93.0m km    Resolution 20
Missile Fire Control FC62-R1 (1)     Range 62.4m km    Resolution 1
Size 5 Missile Stage (20)  Speed: 21,800 km/s   End: 45.8m    Range: 60.1m km   WH: 0    Size: 5    TH: 72/43/21
Size 1 Anti-missile Missile (434)  Speed: 38,400 km/s   End: 2.8m    Range: 6.4m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 358/215/107I went ahead and designed this frigate based off my usual frigate design.  The fallout of the engine changes is pretty massive, I think I will need to put tankers with my ships now. 

But in other news, the ship costs 2,255 BP with 2 loads of missiles.  12-13 ships would be an approximate loadout for this fleet (leaving 8-10 000 BP for supporting sensors and other stuff I didn't bother to make, although this is rather bad ratio for me since I usually build 20 of these to 1 set of supporting ships).  With 60-65 missiles per wave, this fleet cannot damage the either of your fleets.  The Freedom Fleet might have a hard time due to the speed of the 2nd stage, but perhaps not. 

Less depressingly, my AMM coverage can easily eat 2 waves of 240 size 4 armoured missiles each (at 6.25 AMMs per missile) with roughly 50% AMM stocks left.  The Iron Fist has a slightly better time of it replacing with size 4 armoured missiles since a rough estimate indicates it will take nearly 100% of the AMM stocks to intercept them all (12.6 ship-worths of AMMs).  A bit of crew grade (even something as small as 2 to 5%) will give a nice buffer for bad luck. 

But no, basically, the fleet comes through undamaged and then runs away.  The Freedom Fleet might lose the gunboats if the commander of my fleet decides to halt missile attack after the futile first wave (he has 3 more), and he does have a ton of AMMs left (~2000 of them).  's strategic loss though, since the AMMs cost more than the armoured missiles. 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes, any missile with armour becomes hard to crack for AMM and keep your economy safe. Not that it is very easy for beam either, but at least lasers and meson canons are pretty good at swatting down armoured missiles for a decent price. Shields are more effective as well since you often need to sacrifice some yield to get room for the armour.

I never created any MIRV missiles (or simple two stage missiles) with the new missile rules, but it is good to know they have been gimped a little by the new rules. Not that I think MIRV was a particular problem since you could combat them given the right tools, more like a nuisance. And it's not like you needed to use them, at least not against the AI, that is somewhat unfair.

This is why my main line warships are as big as my technology and logistics can muster. In general I use several types of ships. Smaller ships for scouting/vanguard duty and hunting enemy scouts, medium ships for recon in force and major warships to face pure battles and nothing else. The size and quantity of my warships are purely depending on circumstance such as technology progression, time, resources and industrial prowess.

The thing that I value most in missile duels are the range of missiles. If You can fire them outside the enemy active sensor net then even better. But, being able to fire first and keep doing so for an extended time period is key to any engagement. One other important factor on a missile ship (of any size) is speed to keep the enemy at bay and even retreat after you fired if you can't penetrate or drain their AMM stock, but also so you can replenish your missile stock and fire until you drained the enemies AMM stocks dry. Even if they can do the same they need many more tonnage of AMM missiles than I need for heavily armoured ASM.
My escort carriers always carry a few small very fast ordnance transport ships that may transport missiles from my main colliers to the missile cruisers if they are engaged with an enemy. This saves resources in a way that I don't have to equip my collier ships with expensive and fuel hungry engines.
Then comes the fun part of trying to find the opponents logistical support and blow that up. This is usually more important than taking out their main ships. This is usually why I also fit a large part of my fleets with beam PD and shields because that way I can use more space on my colliers for offensive missiles.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Here are two missiles intended for my heavy torpedo fighter crafts.

Vortex class Heavy Torpedo

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 6 MSP  (0.3 HS)     Warhead: 9    Armour: 1     Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 32000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 48 minutes   Range: 92.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 5.092
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 384%   3k km/s 120%   5k km/s 76.8%   10k km/s 38.4%
Materials Required:    2.5x Tritanium   2.592x Gallicite   Fuel x875
Bulldog class Heavy Torpedo

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 6 MSP  (0.3 HS)     Warhead: 4    Armour: 2     Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 32000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 39 minutes   Range: 74.1m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.964
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 352%   3k km/s 110%   5k km/s 70.4%   10k km/s 35.2%
Materials Required:    1.5x Tritanium   2.464x Gallicite   Fuel x700
This would be brought in on the...

Code: [Select]

Tornado class Torpedo Bomber    500 tons     1 Crew     93.6 BP      TCS 10  TH 64  EM 0
6400 km/s     Armour 2-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 5.4
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 9    5YR 130    Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 9   
Magazine 36   

NPE-0050-0032-280  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (2)    Power 32    Fuel Use 280.02%    Signature 32    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km   (55 hours at full power)

TBL-06  Fixed Torpedo Tubes (6)    Missile Size 6    Hangar Reload 45 minutes    MF Reload 7.5 hours
TLCS-091-120-11  Torpedo Launch Control System (1)     Range 91.1m km    Resolution 120
Their main torpedo would be the Vortex while the Bulldog has to be used against large battle groups to drain their AMM capabilities.
They are somewhat slow, but you could easily remove one launcher and add another engine and reduce their range and add a tanker to increase their range. But 6400km/s are usually enough at this tech level.


The Vortex missile is actually both harder to bring down and packs a better yield than a regular size four missile. The bulldog has the same AMM draining efficiency as the size four I drafted above but with greater range and cheaper at the same time.

[Nightstar]

Well, I might as well give my thoughts.  You can't fight a war without an economy, so I like to minimize costs.  What are the greatest expenses?

1: Losing a fight.

Losing warships is rather worse than losing missiles, by all means.  Among other things, you want to survive if the fight isn't going your way.  Jorgen suggested heavy anti-missile defense and armor, I prefer range and speed, which brings me to point 2.

2: AMM fire.

AMMs cost a LOT.  Armor is frequently cheaper, until you factor in the cost of extra engines/SY size.  Getting shot at is a bad proposition.

3: ASM fire.

Also expensive over time, especially if you aren't breaking through enemy defenses.  In the tests above, most ships emptied their entire magazines for little effect.  So here's what the designs from my current game look like.

Ships.

Code: [Select]

Invincible class Fighter-bomber    500 tons     12 Crew     91.4 BP      TCS 10  TH 80  EM 0
8000 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 1
Maint Life 9.16 Years     MSP 23    AFR 10%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 7    Max Repair 16 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1.953 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 34   

20 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (4)    Power 20    Fuel Use 138.35%    Signature 20    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 30,000 Litres    Range 7.8 billion km   (11 days at full power)

Size 2 Missile Launcher (50% Reduction) (1)    Missile Size 2    Rate of Fire 100
Missile Fire Control FC38-R100 (1)     Range 38.4m km    Resolution 100
Stealth Strike II (17)  Speed: 8,000 km/s   End: 1.3d    Range: 886.2m km   WH: 0    Size: 2    TH: 26/16/8

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 Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Lion class Collier    500 tons     9 Crew     79.4 BP      TCS 10  TH 80  EM 0
8000 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 5.42 Years     MSP 10    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 1    5YR 9    Max Repair 10 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 10.97 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 64   

20 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (4)    Power 20    Fuel Use 138.35%    Signature 20    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 30,000 Litres    Range 7.8 billion km   (11 days at full power)

Stealth Strike II (32)  Speed: 8,000 km/s   End: 1.3d    Range: 886.2m km   WH: 0    Size: 2    TH: 26/16/8

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 Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Audacious class Fighter-Scout    500 tons     13 Crew     115.4 BP      TCS 10  TH 80  EM 0
8000 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 14.83 Years     MSP 72    AFR 4%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 9    Max Repair 48 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3.64 months    Spare Berths 0   

20 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (4)    Power 20    Fuel Use 138.35%    Signature 20    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 60,000 Litres    Range 15.6 billion km   (22 days at full power)

Active Search Sensor MR38-R100 (1)     GPS 4800     Range 38.4m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Audacious EM class Fighter-Scout    500 tons     11 Crew     88.4 BP      TCS 10  TH 80  EM 0
8000 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/8/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 22.21 Years     MSP 55    AFR 4%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 3    Max Repair 10 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3.64 months    Spare Berths 2   
Cryogenic Berths 200   

20 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (4)    Power 20    Fuel Use 138.35%    Signature 20    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 60,000 Litres    Range 15.6 billion km   (22 days at full power)

EM Detection Sensor EM2-16      Sensitivity 16     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16m km
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]

Broadsword class Tanker    400 tons     3 Crew     52.8 BP      TCS 8  TH 32  EM 0
4000 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 4.01 Years     MSP 8    AFR 12%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 1    5YR 12    Max Repair 8 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 4.629 months    Spare Berths 0   

16 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2)    Power 16    Fuel Use 79.2%    Signature 16    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 142.0 billion km   (411 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Black Hawk class Fighter Base    22,100 tons     305 Crew     2168.2 BP      TCS 442  TH 0  EM 0
Armour 5-70     Sensors 1/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Flight Crew Berths 0   
Hangar Deck Capacity 20000 tons     


This design is classed as a Planetary Defence Centre and can be pre-fabricated in 9 sections

Missiles

Stealth Strike II

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 2 MSP  (0.1 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 8000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 30.6 hours   Range: 881.2m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.1509
Second Stage: Whee! II x1
Second Stage Separation Range: 8,000,000 km
Overall Endurance: 1 days   Overall Range: 892.6m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 80%   3k km/s 20%   5k km/s 16%   10k km/s 8%
Materials Required:    0.5x Tritanium   0.0189x Boronide   0.032x Uridium   0.6x Gallicite   Fuel x598Whee! II

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 2    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 32000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 6 minutes   Range: 11.4m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.032   Sensitivity Modifier: 80%
Resolution: 100    Maximum Range vs 5000 ton object (or larger): 20,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 0.9509
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 320%   3k km/s 100%   5k km/s 64%   10k km/s 32%
Materials Required:    0.5x Tritanium   0.0189x Boronide   0.032x Uridium   0.4x Gallicite   Fuel x97.5

Using tech:

Code: [Select]

Sensors: 12,880 RP
6000 Active Grav 16
480 MR38-R100
160 FC38-R100
6000 EM Sensitivity 8
160 EM 2-16
80 EM 1-8

Power & Propulsion: 64,500 RP
46000 Magneto-Plasma Engines
~500 Drives
3000 Fuel Consumption 0.8
15000 Max Engine Power x2

Missiles: 25,320 RP
14000 Warhead x5
210 Missiles
2000 Magazine 80%
50 Capacity 16 Magazine
6000 Reload 3
3000 0.5x size
60 Size 2 launcher

Logistics: 19,000 RP
5000 Hanger Deck
1000 Large Fuel
1000 Small Fuel
12000 Fighter Engineering

Energy Weapons: 0 RP

Defensive Systems: 2,500 RP
2500 High Density Duranium

Construction: 0 RP

Biology: 0 RP

TOTAL: 124,200 RPSide note: I'm using somewhat less tech.  An extra level each EM and grav sensors would make the range 69 mkm.  Two would make it 117 mkm.  That could then be doubled by dropping a magazine on the invincibles and changing the audacious to a 1 kton scout.  (Have anything capable of fighting even normal sized ships at 230 mkm? I bet not. )

My typical squad is:
16xFB Invincible
17xCO Lion
1xFS Audacious
1xFS Audacious EM
6xTK Broadsword
For roughly 7300BP including two loads of missiles.

The principle is simple: Stay out of range.  The worst likely scenario against an opponent with equal tech is just running away.  With a first stage that has the same speed as your ship, you can fire an entire magazine such that it all hits at once, bypassing most defenses.  The small active sensor on the second stage should allow for some retargeting in case of overkill.  Perhaps the more interesting bit is that the outer stage is CHEAP.  Larger missiles aren't always more expensive, which is important for your economics. 

In my opinion, most of the designs here miss the point.  To engage in conventional missile warfare is to spend a fortune.  Beam warships, though cheaper in the long run, have major problems actually winning fights.  The winning move isn't better optimized missiles, it's avoiding the problem altogether.

[jseah (OP)]

Size 1 attack missiles are fun in a different way.  You have ridiculous cost ratios like 3.  With a size 2 bus, yours takes more AMM magazine space to intercept than it takes for you to launch it. 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Well, I might as well give my thoughts.  You can't fight a war without an economy, so I like to minimize costs.  What are the greatest expenses?

1: Losing a fight.

Losing warships is rather worse than losing missiles, by all means.  Among other things, you want to survive if the fight isn't going your way.  Jorgen suggested heavy anti-missile defense and armor, I prefer range and speed, which brings me to point 2.

If you read closely and followed the discussion then range and speed is my number one priority as well, and I agree completely with your assessment.  

I'm convince though that in the end large heavily armoured missiles will be much more economical when you consider the tactical and strategical applications.

You could also do the math of how much more efficient a larger yiled is compared to a smaller yield on a missile. It's not like a yield 12 is only double as effective as a yield 6. Its more like four (or maybe more) times as effective in practical terms because of how armour works.

2: AMM fire.

AMMs cost a LOT.  Armor is frequently cheaper, until you factor in the cost of extra engines/SY size.  Getting shot at is a bad propositio

As far as I'm aware I have factored in the total price per MSP versus smaller missiles.

All in all your tactic is interesting. The biggest problem I have with slow buses is that they can be intercepted and so can the scouts that use the active scanner (I know because I do that too). As soon as the active scanner is broadcast it will be hunted by frigates and interceptors and early warning crafts will be launched to intercept any slow moving missile targets if those are used.

I'm in no way saying that it's not a viable tactic but as everything else it is based on an enemy that have no direct defences against it. It is pretty smart though to collect all the missile salvoes in one big salvo. Might even go the stretch and say it is a bit too much to try and use the game mechanics to gain an unbalanced advantage, but that's only my humble opinion.

Anyway all decent battle groups in my game include smaller frigates and/or frigate squadron whose job it is to hunt scouts, Fighter, FAC and/or missile boats etc... Some frigates may even have one or two small beam interceptors (125-250ton) to get rid of unarmed scouts. An interceptor at magneto plasma level can easily have 12000+km/s speed and will destroy any unarmed scouts before the missiles arrive at their target.
Or the frigates is armed with fast anti craft missiles. If you knock out the sensor platform you also knock out all the missiles. So sensor platforms will also need protection or you will need many of them in different places and just hope they are not all intercepted before your missiles reach their targets.

The most glaring weakness I can spot in your set up would be the very short range of your scanners and fire-controls. Most active anti fighter or FAC defence will spot them long before they can open fire on any main battle group.

All in all, I use similar tactics but instead use faster missiles and thus minimize the response time by the enemy screen to engage my sensor or attacking platforms.

[Nightstar]

Obviously it's a rather specialized design.    That's just the beauty of working with fighters, specialization costs nothing.

If you read closely and followed the discussion then range and speed is my number one priority as well, and I agree completely with your assessment.   

Apparently I didn't read carefully enough, I was mostly looking at the designs you posted.

But on to this point:

I'm convince though that in the end large heavily armoured missiles will be much more economical when you consider the tactical and strategical applications.

You could also do the math of how much more efficient a larger yiled is compared to a smaller yield on a missile.  It's not like a yield 12 is only double as effective as a yield 6.  Its more like four (or maybe more) times as effective in practical terms because of how armour works.

As far as I'm aware I have factored in the total price per MSP versus smaller missiles.

I've done some math on sandpapering.  The very rough numbers:
16 WH = 22. 15 * 1 WH missiles
9 WH = 11. 25 * 1 WH missiles
4 WH = 4. 5 * 1 WH missiles
2 WH has basically no boost.

Here's your proposed heavy armor missile:
Capital armoured size 12 missile

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 9    Armour: 4     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 33300 km/s    Engine Endurance: 67 minutes   Range: 134.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 8.25
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 333%   3k km/s 110%   5k km/s 66.6%   10k km/s 33.3%
Materials Required:    3.25x Tritanium   5x Gallicite   Fuel x3750And here's a simple size 2, using slightly worse tech (5x warhead):

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 2 MSP  (0.1 HS)     Warhead: 2    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 33600 km/s    Engine Endurance: 74 minutes   Range: 148.2m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.34
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 336%   3k km/s 110%   5k km/s 67.2%   10k km/s 33.6%
Materials Required:    0.5x Tritanium   0.84x Gallicite   Fuel x1000
Aside from slightly worse fuel requirements (that can probably be optimized away), 6x size 2 missiles is basically just better.  Conclusion: smaller missiles are superior for sheer anti AMM ability.  High yield is another story.  But do we want high yield? I'll take your spear class as an example of balanced ASM and AMM capabilities.  Assuming 40 internal htk (just how badly off is that??), I get:

~37 High yield capital missiles for a kill.  (402 BP) (~450 MSP) (~half killed by AMMs)
~327 Size 2 missiles.  (438 BP) (~750 MSP)

Barring enough launchers to penetrate AMM defense altogether (and maybe even then), I guess we do want high yield! Firing one type, then the other could work better, but we have no way of knowing if our opponent has kept some AMMs in stock just in case.  I don't really know the mechanics of mixed salvos, so I won't get into that.  Lets try shooting down your vindicator instead.  (htk 20?)

~45 High yield (480 BP) (535 MSP) (>35 killed by AMMs)
~220 Size 2 (295 BP) (440 MSP)
And a back of hand calculation suggests size 1 missiles would take 3/4s the cost and space of size 2s in this case.

Unsurprisingly, as the ratio of AMMs to armor goes up, small missiles improve.  However, within common parameters (long range, high armor ships), it looks like you're right: Large armored missiles are superior.  Good to know 

I'll try to get some numbers for MIRVs tomorrow, but I'm out of time.

Oh, the python 2. 7 script I'm using, if anyone wants it:

Code: [Select]

import random

armorstrength = 5
armorlength = 30
htk = 20
iterations = 1000

print "missiles" + "\t" + "warhead"

hit = 0
hits = 0.0
for j in range(0,iterations):
   
    armor = [armorstrength] * armorlength
    damage = 0
    while (damage<htk):
        hits += 1
        hit = random.randint(0, (armorlength-9))
        armor[hit+0] -= 1
        armor[hit+1] -= 2
        armor[hit+2] -= 3
        armor[hit+3] -= 4
        armor[hit+4] -= 4
        armor[hit+5] -= 3
        armor[hit+6] -= 2
        armor[hit+7] -= 1
        armor[hit+8] -= 1
        damage = 0
        for i in range(0,armorlength-1):
            if ((armor[i])<0):
                damage -= armor[i]
print "WH 21:"
print str(hits/iterations) + "\t\t" + str(hits/iterations*21)

hit = 0
hits = 0.0
for j in range(0,iterations):
   
    armor = [armorstrength] * armorlength
    damage = 0
    while (damage<htk):
        hits += 1
        hit = random.randint(0, (armorlength-7))
        armor[hit+0] -= 1
        armor[hit+1] -= 2
        armor[hit+2] -= 3
        armor[hit+3] -= 4
        armor[hit+4] -= 3
        armor[hit+5] -= 2
        armor[hit+6] -= 1
        damage = 0
        for i in range(0,armorlength-1):
            if ((armor[i])<0):
                damage -= armor[i]
print "WH 16:"
print str(hits/iterations) + "\t\t" + str(hits/iterations*16)

hit = 0
hits = 0.0
for j in range(0,iterations):
   
    armor = [armorstrength] * armorlength
    damage = 0
    while (damage<htk):
        hits += 1
        hit = random.randint(0, (armorlength-5))
        armor[hit] -= 1
        armor[hit+1] -= 2
        armor[hit+2] -= 3
        armor[hit+3] -= 2
        armor[hit+4] -= 1
        damage = 0
        for i in range(0,armorlength-1):
            if armor[i]<0:
                damage -= armor[i]
print "WH 9:"
print str(hits/iterations) + "\t\t" + str(hits/iterations*9)

hit = 0
hits = 0.0
for j in range(0,iterations):
   
    armor = [armorstrength] * armorlength
    damage = 0
    while (damage<htk):
        hits += 1
        hit = random.randint(0, (armorlength-3))
        armor[hit+0] -= 1
        armor[hit+1] -= 2
        armor[hit+2] -= 1
        damage = 0
        for i in range(0,armorlength-1):
            if armor[i]<0:
                damage -= armor[i]
print "WH 4:"
print str(hits/iterations) + "\t\t" + str(hits/iterations*4)

hit = 0
hits = 0.0
for j in range(0,iterations):
    armor = [armorstrength] * armorlength
    damage = 0
    while (damage<htk):
        hits += 1
        hit = random.randint(0, (armorlength-2))
        armor[hit+0] -= 1
        armor[hit+1] -= 1
        damage = 0
        for i in range(0,armorlength-1):
            if armor[i]<0:
                damage -= armor[i]
print "WH 2:"
print str(hits/iterations) + "\t\t" + str(hits/iterations*2)

hit = 0
hits = 0.0
for j in range(0,iterations):
    armor = [armorstrength] * armorlength
    damage = 0
    while (damage<htk):
        hits += 1
        hit = random.randint(0, (armorlength-1))
        armor[hit] -= 1
        damage = 0
        for i in range(0,armorlength-1):
            if armor[i]<0:
                damage -= armor[i]
print "WH 1:"
print str(hits/iterations) + "\t\t" + str(hits/iterations*1)


[Jorgen_CAB]

Ok... first I will do a short disclaimer...

^{Me and probably many other players are regarding missiles smaller than size four for anti-ship duty to be a little broken, especially against the AI. At size four and up missiles are quite well balanced in capacity for different purposes. Size two and one missiles are especially broken against AMM which mean AMM will always be more expensive to use against them no matter what technology you use. Even at starting technology versus latest technology.
So, I will not argue the efficiency of a size two missile to saturate AMM. I think most (me included) don't go beneath size four for exactly that reason.
One good house rule could be that no ASM leave home with at least 1MSP worth of warhead and/or Agility. This would make size 2 warheads pretty gimped. I actually think I will use that in my current campaign.}  

Note: In order to rectify the situation Steve might include some mechanic that the better armour technology a ship uses then there would be a higher certain chance a weapon would decrease in strength and do less damage on the armour matrix.
 - At technology level 1 there would be a 10% chance a strength 1 weapon do half damage (rounded down to zero).
 - At technology level 2 there would be a 20% chance for a size one weapon to do no damage and a 10% chance a size 2 weapon do 1 damage.
 - At technology level 3 there would be a 30% chance a strength 1 weapon do no damage, 20% chance a strength 2 weapon do 1 damage and 10% chance a 3 strength weapon do 1 damage.
etc...
It will not satisfy the AMM aspect but a size two missile will practically do very little damage against later technology armour. Already at the fourth level there will be huge cost in damaging a ship with a size two with a low yield. Shields should probably get the same treatment to be on par with armour or perhaps even better at absorbing weapon damage this way

That aside there are still uses for the big missiles. I always use them in two versions as my first test actually showed and they are actually not that bad, just not exactly as good as a size two missile.

Here are three missiles I did some comparison with...

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 8 MSP  (0.4 HS)     Warhead: 12    Armour: 1     Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 32000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 8 minutes   Range: 202.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.451
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 384%   3k km/s 120%   5k km/s 76.8%   10k km/s 38.4%
Materials Required:    2.575x Tritanium   3.456x Gallicite   Fuel x2500


Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 8 MSP  (0.4 HS)     Warhead: 4    Armour: 2.15     Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 32000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 8 minutes   Range: 202.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 4.9807
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 384%   3k km/s 120%   5k km/s 76.8%   10k km/s 38.4%
Materials Required:    1.5375x Tritanium   3.4432x Gallicite   Fuel x2475

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 2 MSP  (0.1 HS)     Warhead: 2    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 35200 km/s    Engine Endurance: 17 minutes   Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.4056
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 387.2%   3k km/s 121%   5k km/s 77.4%   10k km/s 38.7%
Materials Required:    0.5x Tritanium   0.9056x Gallicite   Fuel x1350
They all use the same technology levels. I obviously could added some more armour to the last size eight and reduced the yield even more, but that would make it very week and feels a little gamey.
The strategy is also to mix the missiles in the same salvo in a good mix in some manner or just fire one type if that is necessary. It will give you very good flexibility. A fleet would usually be equipped with about fifty fifty of these missiles but used very differently.

In the test below I only make about 20% damage on the ships, that is what I would aim for. 20% are usually good enough and mean the ship is severely damaged and usually quite unable to perform. Your script certainly made things much easier to see how really good these larger missiles really are.

AMM saturation
I counted that it takes 4 AMM to shoot down a size 8, just to have a number. That means it takes 4.4 missiles to down the size 2 missile.

The armour 3 size 8 missile (which is used to drain or overwhelm AMM/Beam defences) will take 12.9 AMM do shoot down while four size 2 will take 17.6 which means a space to efficiency ration of about 27% in advantage to the size 2. I could have reduced the yield to one since its purpose is not to destroy but saturate but U felt it a bit gamey. The efficiency ration would then be about 18%. The cost ratio is not so bad about 15% in favour of the size 2.


Hits with ASM against ships

When it comes to actually destroying things it becomes very interesting...

"1hit" in the test means how many missiles it take to start doing damage, this is also very important in my opinion.

Code: [Select]

4400 ton Frigate

3 layers of armour
23 width of ship
10 HTK (20% damage)

12 yield size 8 missile (yield 9 will actually be much more efficient)
1 Hit: 3 missiles (highly random)
20% damage: 4.4 missiles at 35MSP or 28BP

2 yield size 2 missile
1 Hit: 14 missilse
20% damage: 29.5 missiles at 59MSP or 41BP

Code: [Select]

6400 ton destroyer

5 layers of armour
30 width of ship
22 HTK (20% damage)

12 yield size 8 missile
1 hit: 4.1 missiles (33MSP)
20% damage: 9.5 missiles at 76MSP or 61BP

2 yield size 2 missile
1 Hit: 34 missiles (68MSP)
20% damage: 68.5 missiles at 137MSP or 96BP

Code: [Select]

12800 ton cruiser

8 layers of armour
48 width of ship
44 HTK (20% damage)

16 yield missile
1 Hit: 11 missiles (88MSP)
20% damage: 25 missiles at 200MSP

12 yield size 8 missile
1 Hit: 11 missiles (88MSP)
20% damage: 25 missiles at 200MSP or 161BP

2 yield size 2 missile
1 Hit: 92 missilse (184MSP)
20% damage: 182 missiles at 364MSP or 255BP

Code: [Select]

25600 ton battlecruiser

12 layers of armour
77 width of ship
67 HTK (20% damage)

16 yield missile
1 Hit: 20 missiles (160MSP)
20% damage: 42 missiles at 336MSP

12 yield size 8 missile
1 Hit: 29 missiles (232MSP)
20% damage: 58 missiles at 464MSP or 378BP

2 yield size 2 missile
1 Hit: 234 missilse (468MSP)
20% damage: 420 missiles at 840MSP or 588BP
The size 16 was just thrown in for good measure. As armour gets thicker and thicker on ships you will need better and better yield missiles to crack them, while lower yield missiles are better at cracking shallower armour while gaining other abilities (such as speed and smaller size).
It is also evident with using the script as technology increase the yield on a larger missile will continue to be more and more effective.

Regarding MIRV we all know they are very good at saturating AMM defences, but that is again because how good just a single point if damage is against armour/shields in comparison and how size don't scale well at size 1-3 as ASM.
Despite that MIRV in version 6 is very slow and not so hard to intercept if you know where the enemy are that fired them. So for MIRV its all about intercepting them before the munition is released. Something the AI obviously will not be able to deal with.

And by the way... that script was super nice...  

[jseah (OP)]

RE missile sizes:
There was an old thread here about armour pen. and warheads.  Called Optimal Missile Size and its still on the frontpage, so you may have read it before.  Still, that was pre-6.2 so its good to have some new analysis. 

This armchair is just too cosy to get out of.  =D

[Nightstar]

Hmm.  We may have to disagree on what's gamey or unfair.  From my point of view, in the cold war, MIRVs with dud warheads were designed for anti missile defense.  If it was a good tactic in RL, why not in a game? It's not like you're required to use AMMs.  They're just a good option.  But if they're  commonly used, why is it bad that specific anti AMM designs exist/would be used? Now, the AI IS kind of stupid, but it's just never going to be competitive with humans at tactics or design.  Treat that fact as you will.

Are missiles broken because beams can't compete? If not, why are small missiles broken just because they can beat large missiles?

By both of our calculations, large armored missiles are still better unless you need to break through a LOT of point defense.  Armor also lets you get through AMMs.  Is armor broken?

Heh, if you check the numbers, it looks like ship armor is more effective than AMMs against the size 2 design or smaller.

On another side note, intercepting MIRVs requires knowing where they were launched from.  MFCs can have rather better range than sensors, so the only defense is killing all the sensor ships before the MIRVs hit.  Even that might not work if the missiles have their own sensors.  I suppose you could guess where the missiles might come from, but such a tactic would never work if aurora wasn't simplified to 2d.  That's what I consider gamey.

That old thread's kinda interesting.  The extra fuel economy on larger missiles makes a huge difference.

[Jorgen_CAB]

No I don't consider MIRV missiles to be broken. I only concider that using size one and two missiles as ASM is broken. I don't think they are broken as AMM drainers for MIRV.

I also mentioned that MIRV may be dealt with under the asumption you know where they are coming from. This is where your scouts come in and it is important that you have them. You need to take out enemyscouts and sensor platforms wherever possible. MIRVS can also be dealt pretty well with beam PD in combination of large shielded ships.


Allthough, personally I'm going to wait with using MIRVs until the missile tracking bonus is working for beam PD.

[Nightstar]

The important part of the MIRV comment was the 'dud warhead' part. 

I obviously could added some more armour to the last size eight and reduced the yield even more, but that would make it very week and feels a little gamey.

I was trying to say dud warheads aren't gamey -- they're a valid tactic if your opponent can't distinguish them easily.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I have (in principle) no problems with duds either from a real life point of view. The major problem with the game are how mechanics work and that you can't prioritise to shoot down a bigger missile in favour of a smaller and that armour can't bounce small yield hits.

If you, for example, look at the changes Steve wants to include into New Aurora or Newtonian Aurora it is to prevent small yield weapons from being overpowered in comparison to the big weapons so that everything has its purpose.

What I mean is that a small missile such as size one or two (at the technology levels discussed) should carry yields far to weak to make an impact on armour and thus automated defences and AMM should be able to ignore them in favour of bigger more imminent threat.

The best strategy in the game would be to launch a bunch of size 1 missiles with the same speed as a big missile and add some armour to it. It is cheap and extremely effective.

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0.1     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 32000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 97 minutes   Range: 186.8m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.425
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 320%   3k km/s 100%   5k km/s 64%   10k km/s 32%
Materials Required:    0.025x Tritanium   0.4x Gallicite   Fuel x1000

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 8 MSP  (0.4 HS)     Warhead: 12    Armour: 1     Manoeuvre Rating: 12
Speed: 32000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 102 minutes   Range: 195.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.754
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 384%   3k km/s 120%   5k km/s 76.8%   10k km/s 38.4%
Materials Required:    3.25x Tritanium   3.504x Gallicite   Fuel x2025
The problem with game mechanics are that they can't be targeted individually and you will be forced to shoot down all the small missiles. In real life with advanced targeting system you could most probably concentrate on the big missiles first. To me this is a gamey tactic. Second I role-play that small yield are too small to hurt heavy ship armour, like shooting at a battleship with a 20mm gun. Therefore (in my opinion) the game breaks down when you use missiles such as size 1-3 as ASM. And you should never mix differently sized missiles since the game mechanics can't really deal with them. The game becomes one sided and you loose the nuances of all the combat systems. The game will just devolve into missile platforms and finding the opponent. Actually invading someone that is not the AI becomes pretty much impossible when you factor in ground listening posts.

I would have no real issues using dud missiles as long as they are the same size. It's pretty reasonable to say that it is impossible to tell the live ones from the duds.


I'm probably not alone on these forum to refrain from using smaller missiles as ASM for the same reasoning that I use.

[Nightstar]

Ah.  I'll admit to not really having known the mechanics of manually targeting missiles.  I guess I'll agree with you on mixing different size missiles.

I will point out that 'small yield' in this case involves nukes.  You mention newtonian aurora, but, if I read correctly, even small missiles there could one shot ships.

The ability to add damage reduction sounds like a really cool idea to me, and should probably be brought up in the suggestions thread, as well as the problem with chaff missiles. 

I think we may have exhausted the thread now.  Any further arguing about which deliberately suboptimal design is the best seems kinda pointless.  Within the restraints we've set, I think mixing cheap armored missiles with high yield of the same size is going to be best for most circumstances.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Well, its still fun to discuss tactics, even if done with some restriction. It is also perfectly fine to discuss tactics using small missiles and so forth, they are after all part of the current game.

I still think that others may benefit regardless, any restrictions anyone uses are personal.

I hope we all agree that we play the way we all think is fun, there is no right way.  

I might also say that there are obviously many tactics to combat heavy missiles. So making your strategy completely depending on them can become as problematic as anything else.

Yesterday I made two fleets. One who was more traditional very much like my traditional Freedom fleet. Then I made one with all 20000 ton assault destroyers. They all had large portion of their hulls using high powered engines, passive defenses, point defenses, some AMM and lots of heavy particle beams. They simply charged the freedom fleet and slaughtered it... this was using same tech levels and colliers to resupply the freedom fleet.

My learning from that is that beam combat is as important as missiles. The only defense I can't seem to find a proper method for is using missiles in the combination above. Such defenses do simply not exist in the game.  

Now... I just have to start playing my real campaign again and not play around with combat testing. So, back to real life.