Overwhelming FC

[Maltay (OP)]

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?

[Charlie Beeler]

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.

[Maltay (OP)]

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?

[Brian Neumann]

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

[Charlie Beeler]

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.

[Charlie Beeler]

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).

[Maltay (OP)]

Thank you for the detailed explanations, much appreciated.

[bean]

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:

Code: [Select]

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.

[Charlie Beeler]

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:

Code: [Select]

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.

[bean]

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.

[Charlie Beeler]

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.

[bean]

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):

Code: [Select]

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

Code: [Select]

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.

[bean]

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.

Code: [Select]

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).

[Hazard]

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.

[bean]

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.