Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Redshirt
« on: September 04, 2012, 05:36:04 PM »

Out of curiosity, how exactly are formations set? Is there a wiki page for it? Last time I tried (using the second tab in the task group screen), when I advanced 5 seconds, I got a bunch of errors. They went away when I removed the settings.
Posted by: Bgreman
« on: September 04, 2012, 04:10:20 PM »

Also curious to see the Federation dispersing its fighting assets so broadly, while seemingly little protection is retained on earth. Anyway, getting a bit off-topic here.

Off-topic sure, but the Fed has a number of PDCs of "unknown" utility on Earth.  They're mostly moving their mobile forces away from Earth to keep them out of range of UN PDCs.
Posted by: Theokrat
« on: September 04, 2012, 06:48:53 AM »

Fair enough!  I obviously didn't bother to actually see if they were the same, I just saw the integral and the next step and was like, "Why does that look so complicated?"

My job doesn't use my math degree, so I spend a lot of time doing cost/benefit analysis of converting CI to construction factories vs converting CI to mines in the midst of a corundium crunch to see the limits that the economy can handle.
he, the semi-AAR makes an amusing read, and its nice to see some differential equations applied to analysis in Aurora. It would also have been fun to device a build-strategy that just barely makes use of the existing mineral stocks (i.e. so that the integral of the usage until break even plus  existing stocks is just 0). Also curious to see the Federation dispersing its fighting assets so broadly, while seemingly little protection is retained on earth. Anyway, getting a bit off-topic here.

I realized the integral could be solved in a more elegant fashion, but I was worried that some readers might not be fully aware of some of the properties of integrals, so I just decided to solve the integral by presenting a solution that is easily verifiable using the chain rule, even if that meant spending more time using basic algebra to get a nice form in the end. Anyway; you solution is obviously more more elegant.

Theokrat thank you for that last explination, I was misreading what your were doing with Pother.
Glad we could clear this up then :-)
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: September 01, 2012, 08:02:34 AM »

Theokrat thank you for that last explination, I was misreading what your were doing with Pother.
Posted by: Bgreman
« on: August 31, 2012, 02:22:18 PM »

Fair enough!  I obviously didn't bother to actually see if they were the same, I just saw the integral and the next step and was like, "Why does that look so complicated?"

My job doesn't use my math degree, so I spend a lot of time doing cost/benefit analysis of converting CI to construction factories vs converting CI to mines in the midst of a corundium crunch to see the limits that the economy can handle.
Posted by: Theokrat
« on: August 31, 2012, 02:08:21 PM »

Here's a question for you:  Does r_FC (the range of the fire control) depend on r itself?  You seem to be taking your integral over r, but r_FC, naively to me, seems to be a constant.  In which case your integration is incorrect.

If r_FC is a constant, then:



rFC is a constant, but actually your result is just the same as my result, only in a different (more elegant) form. Let's start with mine and get to yours through a series of simple transformations:


Solving the quadratic bracket:


Canceling +1 and -1 in the bracket:


Getting the minus sign inside of the bracket:


Getting the 1/2 inside the bracket:


...and the rFC


Now taking out one R factor and we arrive at your solution:

Posted by: Bgreman
« on: August 31, 2012, 01:37:48 PM »

Here's a question for you:  Does r_FC (the range of the fire control) depend on r itself?  You seem to be taking your integral over r, but r_FC, naively to me, seems to be a constant.  In which case your integration is incorrect.

If r_FC is a constant, then:


Posted by: Theokrat
« on: August 31, 2012, 11:39:16 AM »

*claps*  I humbly turn my geek badge over to you, you clearly deserve it more. 
*bow

...
Now time to earn it back.  =D
I'll be looking forward to this!

Thoekrat I applaud the amount of work you put into that.
Thanks, appreciated.

To bad that the results of using that formula imply that you can intercept more missiles than there are weapons to fire. 
Let's not be too quick here. It can actually be the case that you can intercept more missiles than you have weapons - if you manage to fire more than once, which is sort of the idea behind area defense. And to be clear, when you can not fire multiple times, the formula is not going to indicate that you can shoot down more missiles than you have weapons. Because that would be incorrect.

P = 2(90/(5*24))(2-90/192) = 2.2969
The formula that I posted already assumes you can shoot at the missile on the inbound and outbound leg of its journey. This resulted in a factor of 2 that later got cancelled by another factor of 1/2. So there is no need to introduce another factor of 2, and actually the result would be 1.1484 instead of 2.2969 (ignoring the "other" factor). So we would expect slightly more than one missile being shot down (per weapon).

let's conduct a sanity check: the missile moves 120k km in 5 seconds, and we have a range of 90k km per direction, so a total engagement coverage of 180k km. So we could expect 1.5 shots per weapon. If the "pother" factor was 1 (i.e. really fast tracking) then 1.1 shot down missiles would not seem particularly high, especially given the relatively good range of the firecontroll.

At this point however we will make one more assumption, which is that the tracking bonus is maxed out before the missile enters engagement range. Firstly this means that the range-dependent bit of the hitchance is symmetric around 0, i.e. we can can substitute the lower limit of the remaining integral with 0 and get a factor of 2 in front of the whole thing (that is effectively the factor we had been talking about earlier).
...


Writing out the quadratic term in the the brackets and canceling the factors of 2 and 1/2:



Your assuming that R>d will always be true when it's almost always the other way around.  That probigates though the rest of your formula and results in (2-R/rFC) giving a probability over 100%.  This is clearly incorrect.
I am not actually assuming that R>d. Let's say R=0.5d, then the formula would be P=pother*0.5*(2-r/rFC)=pother*(1-0.5r/rFC) - which is always smaller than 100%. Which is just what you would expect - R=0.5d means the missile is so fast that it could travel twice the systems range in one 5s increment. This means we can only ever get one shot at it as it streams past the system - and thus could at most expect one hit.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: August 31, 2012, 11:01:56 AM »

Thoekrat I applaud the amount of work you put into that.  To bad that the results of using that formula imply that you can intercept more missiles than there are weapons to fire. 

P = 2(90/(5*24))(2-90/192) = 2.2969

Your assuming that R>d will always be true when it's almost always the other way around.  That probigates though the rest of your formula and results in (2-R/rFC) giving a probability over 100%.  This is clearly incorrect.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: August 31, 2012, 10:40:03 AM »

I feel stupid now.  :o
Posted by: jseah
« on: August 31, 2012, 09:24:24 AM »

*claps*  I humbly turn my geek badge over to you, you clearly deserve it more. 

...
Now time to earn it back.  =D
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: August 31, 2012, 08:13:42 AM »

I´m gonna save this post for when people on other forums start bemoaning the complexity of games other than Aurora  :)
Posted by: Theokrat
« on: August 31, 2012, 03:20:58 AM »

WARNING: This post contains a bit of basic math, formulas and pictures. I tried to make it somewhat readable, but feel free to point out if its shows up weird on your screen and I will try to change it.


Looks like I didn’t forget anything. It is explicitly excluded with a stipulation as to why.

Yes. Exactly as I did in the first place with tracking speed.

So can we put this part of the discussion to rest by saying that tracking speed has no implication on the comparison between final fire and area defence if (and only if) both systems use the same tracking speed (which they should anyway).

Looks like you were missing the "factor of 2" as well. ... Your still not addressing the possibility of a weapon that both has a range greater than a missiles movement in a single impulse and has the rate of fire to take advantage of it. This is actually minor and not relevant to the weapon in this discussion. It becomes relevent if the evaluation expands to include longer ranged weapons. This is handled in my formula by incrementing the number of impulses a salvo will need to cross the beam range (or the maximum range the fire control is set fire point defense).
No, actually its all in there, but maybe the whole issue becomes clearer when I provide a full derivation. The way we will do this is consider each possible interception separately, and then sum up the results in the end. So we will go through this shot by shot and compute the expected hits.

Lets consider the usual setup: we are engaging a large salvo of missiles that flies exactly past the ship with a relative velocity v. We are assuming the ship can fire every 5 seconds.

Let R be the maximum range of the system (i.e. the smaller of the maximum range of the firecontroll, the laser or the sensor).
Let d be the distance that a missile can cover in 5 seconds (i.e. d=5s*v).

The first shot:
At some point the missile will enter our engagement range. At the end of the 5 second pulse we will get the first shot at the missile. Let us denote the distance of the missile from the ship with r. So the first time that we shoot at the missile it will be anywhere between r=R-d and r=R. It cant be further than R, because then we could not shoot at it this interval and would have to wait for the first shot. It cant be closer than r=R-d either, because d is the maximum distance that the missile will cover relative to the ship, i.e. if it was closer than R-d it would have been within engagement range earlier and this would not be the first shot.

Figure 1: situation during the first shot

The ship is positioned in the centre at 0. During the first shot the enemy missile
might be anywhere indicated by the blue arrow. (Not! necessarily at the tip)


Figure 1 illustrates the point, where the full length of the blue arrow indicates the possible positions of the enemy missile when we first open fire at it. Let us first determine the expected probability that we score a hit during the first interval. We can write the probability that we hit a missile at any particular distance r as p(r). This is not to say that the probability depends only on r (it doesnt), but its the only thing we are going to mention explicitly (for now). Just to be clear: This probability includes many factors and the symbol stands for the full effect.

Now we can computed the expected hits for this first shot. This is done by multiplying i) the chance to score a hit at any point in the range R-d < r < R time ii) the probability that the missile is at this particular point. This is done for all points, then the sum is taken. This can be written as an integral over the full range of R-d<r<R as an integral of the probability p(r) at any particular point r times the probability rho density to find the missile at this spot during this interval:

Now of course we could calculate that already, but lets wait a moment.

What will happen during the second shot? Well the missile will move further by d:

Figure 2: situation during the second shot

The salvo will have moved further by d (the distance it travels in 5s).
It is thus between R-2d < r < R -d


Now for this bit we can analogously compute the expected probability of a hit during the second interval:


There is a nice property of integrals which allows us to write the sum of p1 and p2 as follows (note the change in the limits of the integral):


So at this point we have already taken care of two possible interceptions. But there could be more! And every time we add one more possible interception, the lower limit of the integral in the last equation shifts down by d. Now how long do we have to do that? Easy, lets say we have to do it n times:

Figure 3: situation during the first shot

The last time that a salvo could be shot at. Notice that with a certain probability
the missile might have moved out the the engagement range already.


Now for this last possible interception we can write:

However we know that p(r<-R) must be 0, because we have defined R as the maximum range at which a hit could be scored at all. With this knowledge we can re-write the last term a bit (note the change in the lower limit):


And now we can collect all terms from all shots put together. The full expected hits can be written as the sum during each interval:


Lets simplify that a bit by noting that the probability density rho does not depend on r, so we can take it out of the integral:


Moreover, we can write , that is we can factor out the range-dependent bit of the hitchance from all other factors. Dont worry, all other factors are still there, and we have not dropped them at all, we just merely separated the term:


At this point however we will make one more assumption, which is that the tracking bonus is maxed out before the missile enters engagement range. Firstly this means that the range-dependent bit of the hitchance is symmetric around 0, i.e. we can can substitute the lower limit of the remaining integral with 0 and get a factor of 2 in front of the whole thing (that is effectively the factor we had been talking about earlier). Also we can also write , where rFC is the range of the firecontroll. Thus the equation becomes:


Solving the integral:


Factoring out the fraction and inserting the limits:


Writing out the quadratic term in the the brackets and canceling the factors of 2 and 1/2:


Consolidating the bit in the brackets of 1 and -1 and factoring out the minus:


Factoring out the fraction of R/rFC, where the rFC cancels out:


Substituting the probability density rho with its known value of 1/d=1/(5*v)


Bingo! That is exactly the formula I posted initially (only the names are switched a bit, for which I apologize). And its all there: Multiple interceptions, engaging missile both inbound and outbound, and all other factors but range included in the "other" factor. And that includes the tracking factors. Also note that because I considered v to be the relative speed of the missile versus the ship (and did so from the beginning), so the movement of the ship is actually already figured in.
Posted by: Zook
« on: August 29, 2012, 10:30:59 PM »

I'm not sure they're from this planet. Betelgeuzians, maybe? Just let them continue; after exhausting their mental faculties like that, they fall in a deep coma for months.
Posted by: dgibso29
« on: August 29, 2012, 09:53:38 PM »

You guys are arguing way too strenuously over methodology when your results both indicate that final fire is more effective.

I don't think you said it loud enough.