Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => Development Discussions => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on July 18, 2017, 05:12:02 PM
-
I'm working on the weapon recharge code at the moment and I have run into an issue with reloading box launchers at maintenance facilities.
In VB6, a ship with box launchers has to reload in a hangar bay or at maintenance facilities that are of sufficient size to maintain the ship. However, the maintenance rules have changed in C# Aurora so that the maintenance facilities have to be large enough for all the ships in the same location, or they only be able to provide partial maintenance. This adds a lot of complexities to reloading box launchers.
For example, if multiple ships are reloading at the same location for consistency I should check the facilities are large enough to handle them all. If not, the reload should slow down in proportion. However, that reload could then affect the ability of those maintenance facilities to carry out their normal job of maintenance during the construction phase, as they were using capacity to reload (potentially different) ships - although perhaps not for the whole increment.
Rather than expect the players to try to handle that complexity, I am leaning toward changing the mechanics for reloading box launchers. I have two options at the moment:
1) Reloading box launchers only happens during the maintenance section of the construction phase. This reduces complexity as everything happens at once, so calculating total capacity is straightforward. Also, I am probably going to make the construction phase happen every day, rather than every five days, so this isn't as onerous as it sounds.
2) Remove the ability of box launchers to reload at maintenance facilities, so they can only be reloaded in hangars. This is also a lot easier than it sounds with the introduction of commercial hangars, allowing sizeable deep space bases or support ships. With box launchers available from the start in C# Aurora, this provides a counter-balancing logistical limitation for larger, box launcher-armed ships. This is my preferred option at the moment unless there is a strong argument to the contrary.
-
I would prefer the option to use the maintenance facilities, so that having capital ships with what are now Starfire style XO racks is viable. Now that the box launchers are vulnerable, I don't think you need added checks and balances. Loading XO racks isn't that complicated relative to full blown maintenance either, so you could just have the normal rate apply and skip the math for proportional reload rates.
-
Say I make a 60KTon Battleship with box launchers, that is a huge size hangar. Take old soviet ships they all have box launchers, so it partially make sense for that style of vessel to be created. I do not see box launchers as maintenance issue, its no different then loading magazines for a large ship hold. You should be able to load this ships as easily as loading magazine cargo.
I do not normally disagree with you Steve but I think your wrong on this one. I see this more as a cargo issue, how do you load missiles into magazines is that during maintenance?
-
How about making missile transfers and box launcher reloads use cargo loading mechanics? That seems a little more realistic; ships in real life with Vertical Launch Systems (the real life equivalent for box launchers) don't have to visit a drydock to be reloaded. The reloading equipment is basically just a crane.
This would be more realistic for carriers too; improved cargo handling equipment modules would basically simulate the dollies and trams they use on real aircraft carriers to haul bombs and missiles from the magazines to the aircraft.
-
Are not Box launchers supposed to be harder to reload?
If cargo loading can be used what prevents me from just building a separate magazine ship and reload from it in deep space without any need for hangars?
-
Are not Box launchers supposed to be harder to reload?
If cargo loading can be used what prevents me from just building a separate magazine ship and reload from it in deep space without any need for hangars?
This. Box launchers are supposed to be harder to reload. Also, box launchers NEED to be harder to reload, for balance reason. If not, the already overwhelming advantage of box launchers at starting tech level will get even higher.
With the fact that early in the game box launchers can almost completely ignore point defense, there is little reason to build any other weapon system tactically. Sure, you need a strong economy to feed box launchers. But tactically, box launcher ships are always better. You just need to bring enough of them and you can destroy the opponent without any possible defense on his part.
If box launchers were reloaded like cargo, it would be insane. The major disadvantage of box launchers would disappear. Then it would be truly unbalanced.
In case it was not apparent, I am in favor of option 2). You want a box launcher large warship? Make an hangar that can contain said ship.
EDIT:
And better explain before the "but it is realistic that box launchers are easy to reload" argument gets whipped out. This is a game. So it NEEDS balance, or else there's no point.
Want to have your perfectly realistic box launchers that reload in no time? Fine, give me infinite range railguns, as it should be, then we can talk about it. Once I can use my railguns to target your planet from the other side of the system, AS IT SHOULD BE, then you can have your perfectly realistic box launchers.
The bottom line is, in a game there need to be compromises so that the game is actually fun to play. If you remove all the limitations and make a weapon system OVERWHELMINGLY more useful than any other, what's the point of playing?
-
IRL box launchers get loaded in exactly that way, it just takes longer than a magazine fed system. On that note, cargo transfers should take time during which the transferring ships can't move or fire, with the obvious exception that a ship inside a hangar doesn't limit the carrier. Launching and landing should take time as well.
If putting time limits on cargo transfers isn't feasible, requiring box launchers to reload inside a hangar is also acceptable. Reloading in a hangar should be available in any case, and should be faster than a cargo transfer but slower than a magazine feed.
Speaking of carriers, VB6 Aurora has a nasty bug when putting a carrier inside a hangar: Any fighters inside the carrier get deleted. I hope this gets fixed in C#.
EDIT:
@Zincat A box launcher that can be reloaded in no time isn't realistic, just like a railgun that can accurately hit a target on the other side of the system without guided munitions isn't realistic.
-
Bear in mind there is a difference between launcher cycle time and missile reload time. For a 'normal' missile ship, as soon as the launcher recycles, it can load another missile from the magazine. However, missiles are loaded into the magazine in a different operation. For box launchers in VB6, the launchers can be loaded with missiles quickly. It is the recycle of the launcher that takes a long time. This can seen as preparing the launcher for firing.
In C# Aurora, loading ordnance will take time rather than be done instantly (a similar change to refuelling). This will be true for both box launchers and magazines. As 'normal' missile ships will have increased magazine reload times, it makes sense to further limit box launchers to maintain balance. In fact, maybe rather than simply recycling launchers in a hangar, box launchers should reload there as well. This wouldn't be a problem for fighters or FACs. For larger warships, a dedicated facility would be required, probably using commercial hangars and commercial magazines (Space Dock!). Below is an excerpt from the U.S. Naval Institute Blog regarding the replenishment of current VLS.
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2015/07/30/vls-at-sea-reloading
"Unfortunately, reloading VLS at-sea isn’t incorporated into the Navy’s logistical DNA in the same way refueling is. Reloading VLS cells in today’s status quo demands an industrially robust port facility with heavy equipment, trained rigging crews, and a large munitions storage facility. It is not uncommon to damage equipment, and people have been seriously injured during VLS loading and unloading evolutions. Experts at the Naval Weapons Stations and some Naval Support Facilities use cranes to unload spent canisters, move gas management system equipment, and place loaded canisters in cells. "
-
Agree with 2, I'm willing to imagine the TN drive field of the missile somehow requires it to be loaded inside a hangar to work from a box launcher.
-
You should leave both in. Big ships can only be reloaded at (planetary?) maintenance facilities, and fighters only in hangars. I don't know about FACs. Both? Hangars only?
If you force me to use hangars, I'll just build a single one capable of taking one of my big warship (and on a civilian shipyard, since we're getting both civilian hangars and magazines), and instead of 5 hours of reload for all the ships' size 4 box launchers at maintenance facilities, it'll only take 30 minutes for each ship, less if the Fighter Ops bonus is fixed and works on bigger ships. And all that for just a few more clicks.
And if I have to reload my big ships with box launchers in hangars only, I might aswell tractor the hangar closer to the action and reload there and get back to in the fight faster, instead of having to send the ships back to a planet with both the missiles and enough maintenance facilities. Won't even be more logistically involved since I already always have tankers and colliers anyway, they'll just take care of the hangars instead of other ships, and this time the colliers will be massive civilian ships carrying a smegload of missiles for all the box launchers.
I won't ever even use regular launchers anymore and enjoy massive alpha strikes, this'll be fantastic.
-
EDIT:
@Zincat A box launcher that can be reloaded in no time isn't realistic, just like a railgun that can accurately hit a target on the other side of the system without guided munitions isn't realistic.
I respectfully disagree. I am not talking of hitting moving targets. I am talking of large, maybe kilometers large immobile planetary structures like factories and mines. In space, where there is no attrition nor any other obstacle, it is just a matter of calculating trajectory and gravity fields. Sure, a complex task, but possible even at our tech level, and even more so in a futuristic environment. Maybe not 100% of hits would land, but so what? Even if your cities gets turned into rubble, it's no skin off my back as long as your economy gets wrecked and I eventually win.
At any rate, I don't want to derail the discussion. It was just an example to point out that Aurora is not 100% realistic already and that some compromise is needed for gameplay. It would be wrong to have just one type of weapon system exceedingly efficient, it would make the game boring. As it is, because of the 5-seconds ticks and how point defense works in the game, box launchers are extremely efficient already, especially in the early game when there's no effective point defense to be had.
Anyway, as Steve posted above, reloading box launchers even in real life is not such an easy thing as some people seem to think. In regards to the game, I would be fine with the large deep space installations with hangars required to reload them. It is an acceptable solution because it introduces a layer of logistical complexity. An extra "station" that needs to be positioned correctly, or to be towed in place, and that needs to be defended.
Such a compromise would be fine I think, which is why I would prefer the hangar-required-to-reload option.
-
I instinctively like option 2 best, as it seems very neat and a nice balance tweak as well. But I can see the micro-management getting annoying if you have to individually load and unload a fleet of frigates into your
starbase commercial hangar for reloading, it would be nice if that could be abstracted somehow, which would seem to favour option 1 again.
You should leave both in. Big ships can only be reloaded at (planetary?) maintenance facilities, and fighters only in hangars. I don't know about FACs. Both? Hangars only?
I'm very much against arbitrary distinctions between fighters and larger ships. Much more satisfying to come up with rules that scale.
If you force me to use hangars, I'll just build a single one capable of taking one of my big warship (and on a civilian shipyard, since we're getting both civilian hangars and magazines), and instead of 5 hours of reload for all the ships' size 4 box launchers at maintenance facilities, it'll only take 30 minutes for each ship, less if the Fighter Ops bonus is fixed and works on bigger ships. And all that for just a few more clicks.
And if I have to reload my big ships with box launchers in hangars only, I might aswell tractor the hangar closer to the action and reload there and get back to in the fight faster, instead of having to send the ships back to a planet with both the missiles and enough maintenance facilities. Won't even be more logistically involved since I already always have tankers and colliers anyway, they'll just take care of the hangars instead of other ships, and this time the colliers will be massive civilian ships carrying a smegload of missiles for all the box launchers.
I won't ever even use regular launchers anymore and enjoy massive alpha strikes, this'll be fantastic.
Not to rain on your parade, but given the civilian hangar inefficiency isn't that going to be a massive ship to try and tug around the galaxy? And presumably pretty slow as well. Not to mention the size of civilian jump engine you'll need.
But If you're talking about building/moving a starbase into poisition to support a legthy military campaign, then I think that's kind of the idea behind these changes?
-
Not to rain on your parade, but given the civilian hangar inefficiency isn't that going to be a massive ship to try and tug around the galaxy? And presumably pretty slow as well. Not to mention the size of civilian jump engine you'll need.
Doesn't matter, civilian shipyards are cheap and easy to get big and I need something to spend all these minerals on anyway. Won't even need to be that massive, just hangars for one ship, and magazines for one reload. And the warships themselves don't need to be huge in the first place.
And not for a lengthy campaign, but for a battle. Every battle.
-
This. Box launchers are supposed to be harder to reload. Also, box launchers NEED to be harder to reload, for balance reason. If not, the already overwhelming advantage of box launchers at starting tech level will get even higher.
With the fact that early in the game box launchers can almost completely ignore point defense, there is little reason to build any other weapon system tactically. Sure, you need a strong economy to feed box launchers. But tactically, box launcher ships are always better. You just need to bring enough of them and you can destroy the opponent without any possible defense on his part.
If box launchers were reloaded like cargo, it would be insane. The major disadvantage of box launchers would disappear. Then it would be truly unbalanced.
In case it was not apparent, I am in favor of option 2). You want a box launcher large warship? Make an hangar that can contain said ship.
EDIT:
And better explain before the "but it is realistic that box launchers are easy to reload" argument gets whipped out. This is a game. So it NEEDS balance, or else there's no point.
Want to have your perfectly realistic box launchers that reload in no time? Fine, give me infinite range railguns, as it should be, then we can talk about it. Once I can use my railguns to target your planet from the other side of the system, AS IT SHOULD BE, then you can have your perfectly realistic box launchers.
The bottom line is, in a game there need to be compromises so that the game is actually fun to play. If you remove all the limitations and make a weapon system OVERWHELMINGLY more useful than any other, what's the point of playing?
Just make box launchers unable to load from a magazine. They can only be loaded from a mothership or population.
-
I think now that box launchers are vulnerable, they need a lot less nerfing than some people may think. They are basically starfire style XO racks now. A ship with only box launchers will either have to shoot its missiles at the start of an engagement or risk having an early catastrophe. With that being said, I am a fan of the idea of just using the cargo handling rate for planetary reloads, or something derived from that. It's something that can be kept simple without too much impact.
-
The primary reason I'd like maintenance center reloads for box launchers is micromanagement reduction. It's definitely more work to have FACs and corvettes and the like dock at a hangar for reloads than it is to send them to a population, order "load ordnance from colony" and let them sit until tubes are ready. Hangar-only reloads would incentivize building a big hangar, and then cycling all the ships through it.
I'd be absolutely fine with the maintenance centers only reloading tubes during the production/maintenance/upkeep tick only, actually I'd be fine if it only happened once per 5 days. If you want to load your ships faster, make hangars for them. :)
-
Well in that case I think we will be seeing Space ports as maintenance facilities, I will try not see them as hangars, to me a hangar is something full enclosed, i cannot see big ships in hangars, maybe a berthing bay, similar to the shipyard docks. My point is I see mag missiles and box missiles as cargo loading in the same way you would load fuel provisions etc, I think the difference is you need a spaceport/hangar to do box reloads as it requires EVA to load them.
I see missile magazines as a prestack crate, that gets loaded into the cargo bay and moved into missile magazines. Box launchers need to be eva singularly and inserted then electronic tested for make sure there is a correct connection. This definitely would take more time, impossible to do without a facility possibility/probably
I think Balance box launchers yes you can launch them all in one hit, but they are a one hit wonder, you need to go back to base to reload, this make long term deployments not great, but also you can make box launch AAM as well to counter that punch, then have magazine launch missile ships in he fleet to carry on with long term or smaller engagements, so I do not see box launch missiles are too OP.
I see the maintenance platforms where you would load box missiles, and my assumption would be box launchers would be a normal cargo transfer for that ship, with maybe a little extra time included for reload. An hour per box launcher. But I do not see that as impacting maintenance, in the same way load food, fuel etc does not impact it. They are separate staff that do the jobs in parallel to the maintenance crews.
-
How difficult would it actually be to add something like a munition support facility and module? It seems like adding a specialized facility for supporting reloading would be reasonable and somewhat logical. If its reasonably easy to add maybe we should go with that.
That way you could have ships that carry missiles and have fancy re-arming systems to bring box launcher ships back up to readiness, without having to haul around a gigantic pile of machinery designed to do comprehensive maintenance.
e: Also that way hangars are only useful for transportation and storage, rather than implicitly having the ability to manage munitions. You could imagine a munition support module unfolds a scaffolding around the target ship, as opposed to a gigantic hangar module that surrounds the ship with solid walls.
-
Considering missiles cargo isn't that bad an idea actually. It'd need redoing the current cargo handling mechanics towards the new fuel handling mechanics, but what if you imagined loading/unloading of all cargo at a rate of (tons per hour)? You'd need to stat every facility by weight but that isn't hard since those go by 'number of cargo bays with tonnage based capacity' in numbers, while you could weigh combat battalions towards their base combat rating, possibly weighing either attack or defense values as heavier.
You could then change the cargo and troop bays as well as the magazines to having a rating of how much cargo by weight they can take on in a given time frame and have cargo handling systems either provide a flat boost or a stacking multiplier. Divide cargo handling systems into civilian systems and military ones and give the civilian systems major penalties in loading/unloading speeds of military equipment like missiles and troops while the military systems make a ship count as military and done.
You could even make drop pods a descendant tech from military cargo handling systems that are meant to answer the question 'how do I get troops on the ground in the shortest possible time?'
-
I like the idea of modelling all cargo better, even if it abstract, and having research in cargo efficiency. Which we already have but it is more society based then shipbased.
I almost think maintenance facility should be a new structure. Not abstracted like it is now, almost like shipyards are now, this way you can create a facility like you do with shipyards and then add on your cargo efficiency. It also like shipyards another thing that can be blown away from a space war.
This facility has docking berths or capacity / cargo loading ability / a hangar for small vessels / maybe some point defence / missile magazines / Crew quarters / troop facilities and floats in space in the orbit like shipyard. This way your able to set up maintenance facilities anywhere, which also handles cargo loading fuel etc. It is the staging point for your fleet needs.
Also the loading from the facility to the ships should be as it is now in hours, however the loading from the planet to the facility should be a long time in days, this show how hard it is to get things from the ground up to the facility.
We will then see proper space ports in my opinion. This would solve a lot of the issues in my opinion.
-
I just want the new system to not increase the amount of micromanagement it takes to reload box launchers. I do not like the idea of having to assign motherships and land every ship I build in a hangar just to reload my launchers. It's not the logistics of it that bothers me; I don't mind building the hangars. I just really don't want any more things to manage that don't really add anything. There's already a huge amount of clicking to do simple things, please don't make it worse.
-
I just want the new system to not increase the amount of micromanagement it takes to reload box launchers. I do not like the idea of having to assign motherships and land every ship I build in a hangar just to reload my launchers. It's not the logistics of it that bothers me; I don't mind building the hangars. I just really don't want any more things to manage that don't really add anything. There's already a huge amount of clicking to do simple things, please don't make it worse.
Absolutely this. A large special Box Launchers Reloading facility you have to build and transport everywhere would be preferable to more clicking around with hangars just to carry out a simple reload.
-
I just want the new system to not increase the amount of micromanagement it takes to reload box launchers. I do not like the idea of having to assign motherships and land every ship I build in a hangar just to reload my launchers. It's not the logistics of it that bothers me; I don't mind building the hangars. I just really don't want any more things to manage that don't really add anything. There's already a huge amount of clicking to do simple things, please don't make it worse.
I want to add on what I suggesting, the facility I was talking about should be all maintaining and cargo loading should be auto done in orbit much like it is now for 6.0 no micro management, it should be as easy as orbiting the planet as we do now. Also the facility should auto restock itself from the planet if it can, that way you do not need to look after it. the hangar is not for loading its just that fighter that need hangar not to incur maintenance can be accomplished. Its not for bigger ships. Also the facility like shipyards should be expanded easily not like ships trying spaceport where you have to make it in a shipyard first. But I agree as little micro for maintenance as possible
I really like how easy maintenance is now in 6, I do not want it harder I would like it more fleshed out with a facility without engines that can be tugged to other sites if needed.
-
I'd far prefer to go the maintenance route than the hanger route, the idea of having to sit and click through docking and undocking large numbers of ships just to reload them sends a shudder down my spine.
-
I'm all for option 2 in this case, it will make things nice a simple with regards to game code so reduce possible bugs. It demands zero extra cpu power and thus adds to the "every little helps" ethos with regards to turn times.
For those folks who mention the extra micro management this would create, it really should only sum up to around two or three clicks per task force. Does the simple method of give an order to land and assign mothership, set the loadout of one ship, then just use the reload parasites button not still work in Aurora C#?
In general unless you are using larger ships with box launchers then the craft will likely already have a mothership hanger in play so the first steps are not additional. Even if using a larger ship it just means the mothership tag is getting changed each time they reload, this though doesn't involve any extra mouse clicks or such as it is in the same orders window and any normal movement and will be straight forward to have them set back to their original hanger mothership.
-
Agreed with the concerns about the hangar option adding to micromanagement. As someone who uses box launchers on basically everything, having to assign motherships to my battleships seems a little odd...
-
If there are so many users who currently like to use box launchers on nearly all ships I don't see adding few more clicks for them to incentive building other armaments too as a bad move.
There can be "Rearm TF" command which slowly starts loading missiles into TF magazines, the slower the more ships are in given TF, sped up by standard logistic bonus.
-
We should not be balancing via making the game harder to play. The best games are easy to play but hard to play well.
I'm not saying the game is too complex, to be clear. I don't want any mechanics removed or simplified. I just want the UI to be as easy to use as it can be without dumbing down the gameplay.
-
If there are so many users who currently like to use box launchers on nearly all ships I don't see adding few more clicks for them to incentive building other armaments too as a bad move.
To be honest, atleast in my case I use them simply because they seem the most realistic option, if we extrapolate from current wet-navies anyway. I very much like some of the changes Steve has already mentioned (such as the chance for them to detonate if they have missiles inside) that will make other choices more viable, but suggesting that adding more interface 'work' to the user is a valid way to discourage their use is asinine. I suppose by this logic next we're going to have Meson weapons require setting the target again every increment, and Gauss cannons has to be toggled back onto PD mode every increment?
-
To be honest, atleast in my case I use them simply because they seem the most realistic option, if we extrapolate from current wet-navies anyway. I very much like some of the changes Steve has already mentioned (such as the chance for them to detonate if they have missiles inside) that will make other choices more viable, but suggesting that adding more interface 'work' to the user is a valid way to discourage their use is asinine. I suppose by this logic next we're going to have Meson weapons require setting the target again every increment, and Gauss cannons has to be toggled back onto PD mode every increment?
I agree that more interface work is not the solution to discourage the usage of box launchers. More clicks by itself is not a good proposal. However, the hangar solution makes sense if extrapolating from a current-world situation, because in the real world, and by extent in the supposed future-Aurora-world, reloading box launchers is not easy. So it cannot simply be like "moving cargo". So it makes sense that specific structures (like hangars) are required in order to reload such weapons. Especially when away from planets, as TN ships are not normally completely moving in "real space"
So, the hangar solution is not good "because it needs more clicks", but rather it is good "because it makes sense and is realistic". And the people that say they do not want hangars since "they need more clicks" are making an argument based on convenience, and not on realism and game balance.
And there IS a game balance problem. I will say it again, because of how the 5-seconds timeframe works in the game, box launchers have an overwhelming TACTICAL advantage in the game. They may be costly, but unless you are at a very advanced tech level (max level gauss cannons), at equal tonnage a box launcher fleet will basically always win. Low-tech point defense simply cannot keep up.
There is no low-tech "area point defense" weapon system, capable of impairing/destroying multiple missiles every 5 seconds. Even ECM is useless, it just reduces the range, it never destroys missiles or make them lose their target permanently.
This is, in my opinion, a limitation of the Aurora combat system. Understandable perhaps, but no less unbalanced. And because of that, box launchers remain king in the tactical combat. And really, the only weapon system that makes sense in a ship vs ship scenario if you minmax.
-
How about adding another order for ships with box launchers?
"Reload missiles at next hangar" or something which simply reloads box missiles without changing the mothership-parasite settings.
Wouldn't this take care of the added micro management?
-
How about adding another order for ships with box launchers?
"Reload missiles at next hangar" or something which simply reloads box missiles without changing the mothership-parasite settings.
Wouldn't this take care of the added micro management?
If Steve can implement this, I think it would be good. A "reload box launchers " order that can be chosen when selecting a TF or a base with hangars of a sufficient size. Just pick your task force, move it to the base/mothership/whatever, and then use the "reload box launchers" order.
-
Somewhat late to the party here. If we can avoid the micromanagement problems, I have no problem requiring all launchers be reloaded in hangar.
Below is an excerpt from the U.S. Naval Institute Blog regarding the replenishment of current VLS.
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2015/07/30/vls-at-sea-reloading
"Unfortunately, reloading VLS at-sea isn’t incorporated into the Navy’s logistical DNA in the same way refueling is. Reloading VLS cells in today’s status quo demands an industrially robust port facility with heavy equipment, trained rigging crews, and a large munitions storage facility. It is not uncommon to damage equipment, and people have been seriously injured during VLS loading and unloading evolutions. Experts at the Naval Weapons Stations and some Naval Support Facilities use cranes to unload spent canisters, move gas management system equipment, and place loaded canisters in cells. "
There's no IQ requirement to publish with USNI. It's a lot like an internet forum, except that everyone involved has the letters USN after their name. The reason the USN abandoned UNREP of VLS (which they used to have the capability to do) was that in the aftermath of the Cold War they were looking more at land-attack missions than air defense, and as such it wasn't really necessary, given the complications involved. That said, I work across the street from the Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach, CA, and they have like a couple of cranes. Not big ones like you see in ports or to build skyscrapers, but the kind mounted on trucks. And this is one of the leading weapons facilities for the Pacific Fleet. I wouldn't want to do it at sea (missiles are big, ships move), but I don't think you'd have any real trouble doing it in any port, except for the paperwork.
-
Again I see no reason to have hangers, as I believe maintenance facilities are exactly that. They would be facilities with docking berths to allow for the repair and maintenance of internal and externals of the ship. Having Hangars is extra layer that does not need to be there
Box launchers are not a balance issue, if you get swamped by a single attack of box launchers, then return the favor with AMM to you arsenal in box launcher fashion, just like in honor harrington with missile pods. Either way there is no need for BALANCE in a single player game, realism and options creates it own balance.
As for Box launchers being so hard compared to missile magazines, here are a number of images, from our current wet navy. As for loading missiles on future starships into magazines I see no difference, they will always have a limited entry point. They will always need stacking internally and it will always need to be done carefully. Only difference for space that i see is EVA and non EVA requirements. But if you do box launchers like the current Ticonderoga class with these internal/external missile pods for the tomahawks there is very little EVA.
Box Launchers
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eeH3-CXcYMo/VWuPXmAcvWI/AAAAAAAAEXw/9Pb1hzgscqs/s1600/tomahawk%2Blauncher.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0c/62/24/0c6224de245819e442be6b1c16f4ba59--navy-chief-naval-history.jpg
Magazine
As you could see these would be loaded in one by one, even if they were precrated into magazine you would still need to them at a size suitable for cargo entries, no in huge bulk.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/07/84/ed/0784ed70505f8f0139f368eb51e3889c.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/USS_Mahan_loading_an_SM-2ER.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6lvJE8W.png
Side note it looks like most of the wet navies these days are going back to box launch styles, rather then magazine style AAM, atleast for their big missiles.
-
Side note it looks like most of the wet navies these days are going back to box launch styles, rather then magazine style AAM, atleast for their big missiles.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Some types of missiles have always been 'box', most notably anti-ship missiles. The FFG-7s did have Harpoon capability on their Mk 13 launcher, but that was the exception, not the rule, and I can't think of another example. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviets had some.) ASROC and Sea Sparrow were also box (except for the ASROCS on some of the rail launchers), although they usually had onboard reloads. Magazine-type launchers were only seen for SAMs. I believe that one of the main reasons they switched to VLS was that it allowed them to handle bigger missiles, mostly Tomahawk, which they couldn't fire out of Mk 13 or Mk 26 launchers. Another aspect may have been the demise of the really big missiles, like Talos, which might have been tricky to fit in a VLS.
I'm not sure how much of this carries over into space. One particular aspect is that you don't have sea motion in space, which is a serious constraint on missile handling.
-
To add to the above, there are a few other things that I'd consider key factors for why VLS is really the 'standard' for modern warships, even in the air defence role;
-Flexibility; Most modern systems can accept a range of munitions, meaning your mix of short-range SAMs (often multipacked), long-range SAMs and other loads (anti-sub, land attack, anti-surface) is entirely up to the users preference and mission requirements
-Availability; Anything thats loaded is 'instantly' available, and this is really key especially when you have multiple different munitions loaded
-Compactness/Weight; Again, while there's some advantages to VLS even with a single munition, if you have multiple, replacing the 'single purpose' systems for those with a 'multi-purpose' VLS can save quite a bit of weight and space.
Also, while the Talos is fairly long (just under 10m), its certainly possible to fire missiles of that size from a VLS, as the P-700 is the same length and bulkier. Of course, in this case the VLS for them is 'single purpose', but thats probably a design issue, as the Soviets/Russians seem to have liked dedicated VLS systems for each weapon type.
-
I believe that one of the main reasons they switched to VLS was that it allowed them to handle bigger missiles, mostly Tomahawk, which they couldn't fire out of Mk 13 or Mk 26 launchers. Another aspect may have been the demise of the really big missiles, like Talos, which might have been tricky to fit in a VLS.
My impression at the time (mostly from Harpoon and Clancy :) ) was that it was RoF for missile defense. Aegis was designed to counter the threat of massed soviet bomber attacks launching large salvoes of ASM; the main improvements in the Aegis cruisers to support this were the introduction of phased array radars for electronic steering and multiple target illumination and the VLS system for rapid launch. Wikipedia claims that the Mk 13 one armed bandits have a RoF of 1 per 10 seconds for ASM. This site http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/US_GMLS.htm says Mk 26 (double-rail launcher that Aegis cruisers started with) has twice that (2 per 10 seconds), while Mk 41 VLS is listed at 1 per second.
Hmmmm - just realized... STEVE: Have you thought about a phased array fire control that could illuminate a boatload of targets simultaneously? Would probably screw up game balance, but it seems a reasonable extension.
John
-
If only firecontrol channels and limitations were a more detailed thing... :D
-
My impression at the time (mostly from Harpoon and Clancy :) ) was that it was RoF for missile defense. Aegis was designed to counter the threat of massed soviet bomber attacks launching large salvoes of ASM; the main improvements in the Aegis cruisers to support this were the introduction of phased array radars for electronic steering and multiple target illumination and the VLS system for rapid launch. Wikipedia claims that the Mk 13 one armed bandits have a RoF of 1 per 10 seconds for ASM. This site http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/US_GMLS.htm says Mk 26 (double-rail launcher that Aegis cruisers started with) has twice that (2 per 10 seconds), while Mk 41 VLS is listed at 1 per second.
Hmmmm - just realized... STEVE: Have you thought about a phased array fire control that could illuminate a boatload of targets simultaneously? Would probably screw up game balance, but it seems a reasonable extension.
John
I'd need to re-read the relevant Friedman (which I have at home), but I wouldn't be surprised if it was some of all of the above. Another aspect, not mentioned, is that your missiles are not left exposed to the elements, and you can fire in worse weather, due to ship motion constraints.
That said, AEGIS doesn't use a phased-array illuminator. What gives it better target-handling capability is that unlike earlier ships it doesn't have to use the illuminator throughout the flight of the missile. The missiles have a programmable autopilot, which extends range (they can fly more efficient trajectories) and means that they illuminators are only required for the final few seconds of flight. The SPG-62s are slaved the AEGIS, and in fact do not even have a receive unit to make sure that they're tracking the target. New Threat Upgrade was a program for earlier missile ships which gave them the programmable autopilot, but they still had lower capability due to worse main radar and the fact that their illuminators had to search, unlike the SPG-62s.
-
That said, AEGIS doesn't use a phased-array illuminator. What gives it better target-handling capability is that unlike earlier ships it doesn't have to use the illuminator throughout the flight of the missile. The missiles have a programmable autopilot, which extends range (they can fly more efficient trajectories) and means that they illuminators are only required for the final few seconds of flight. The SPG-62s are slaved the AEGIS, and in fact do not even have a receive unit to make sure that they're tracking the target.
Yep - I'd forgotten this.
John
-
What if box launcher reloads were allowed between ships, but required special equipment on both the reloading and reloaded ship? This would mimic the system currently in use. This module would slowly reload the box launchers while underway and docked with the collier. The reloading module would be larger, representing the dedicated equipment to move missiles into the tubes, cranes, and ready the tubes for firing, while the receiving equipment can be smaller, representing docking and handling equipment. There would be a penalty for movement speed, and a possibility of killing a crew member on both vessels. That way there is a way to reload a ship underway, but it is a risky operation that requires a dedicated collier. It could also be included on a forward fleet base. Then the player can choose to include the ability to reload with a mass penalty. For example, a home defense missile boat would not benefit from it, and could carry more missiles, but a forward deployed destroyer could stay engaged a lot longer if a system was included. The reloads would be made quicker and safer with the logistics bonus of the various commanders.