Incorrect. AMM being crap in earlier tech is mainly due to the lack of engine boost tech. It is impossible to make them go fast enough. They match the PD hit chance at around internal fusion tech, which is mid tech of the entire tree, or rather late tech for many of the players choose to play at lower tech rate.
Here's a comparison of three AMMs built with Improved Nuclear Pulse era tech (<6,000 RP), with the caveat that the second uses Missile Agility 80 (15,000 RP) instead of 48, while the third uses engine boost 3X (15,000 RP) instead of 2X. The difference in accuracy is marginal [100% hit chance at 5,940 km/s instead of 6,300 km/s] between the High Agility and High Boost versions. The Standard AMM achieves a 100% hit chance at only 4,400 km/s
Standard AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 22
Speed: 20,000 km/s Fuel: 25 Flight Time: 40 seconds Range: 0.82 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 0.98021 Development Cost: 98
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 440.0% 3k km/s 146.7% 5k km/s 88.0% 10k km/s 44.0% 20k km/s 22.0% 50k km/s 8.8% 100k km/s 4.4%
High Agility AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 33
Speed: 18,000 km/s Fuel: 46 Flight Time: 78 seconds Range: 1.42 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 1.15024 Development Cost: 115
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 594.0% 3k km/s 198.0% 5k km/s 118.8% 10k km/s 59.4% 20k km/s 29.7% 50k km/s 11.9% 100k km/s 5.9%
High Boost AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 21
Speed: 30,000 km/s Fuel: 77 Flight Time: 30 seconds Range: 0.90 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 1.21024 Development Cost: 121
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 630.0% 3k km/s 210.0% 5k km/s 126.0% 10k km/s 63.0% 20k km/s 31.5% 50k km/s 12.6% 100k km/s 6.3%
In any case, AMM launchers should
not be able to match beam point-defence shot-for-shot. At this tech level, a 420 ton gauss cannon would achieve 3 shots at 12,000 km/s, for a total of 36,000 km/s (neglecting accuracy modifiers for brevity). 420 tons is enough to fit in three 50 ton AMM launchers and 270 tons of magazine ~(25 reloads), which would achieve 13,200 km/s total per firing increment,
except the whole point of AMM defences is that they can fire multiple times at inbound missiles. Even garbage low-tech fire controls can throw out four to six salvos, which would raise that to 52,800 km/s to 79,200 km/s - twice as good as beam point-defence. Once you hit 5s reloads, getting eight to twelve salvos becomes trivial.
Essentially, beam point-defence and AMM defences should be
good at different things - AMMs should excel at defending against saturation strikes (aka box launcher volleys), while beam weapons should be significantly better at defending against attrition strikes (aka full-size launcher volleys backed up with deep magazines).
Full-sized launchers won't become effective, and beam PD is already one cause of the incentive of large salvo size. Let full size launchers fire faster won't make them more efficient against PD at all. For example, assume the ASMs are 8x as fast as the equivalent tier BFC tracking speed (so a 4x BFC has a 50% hit chance). Assume gauss firing tech 5. A single full size gauss turret will will be 8.4HS (6HS * 1.4), which can fire 5 shots, or 2.5 effective shots against the incoming ASM. 8.4HS is enough for 1.4 full-sized S6 ASMs on the attacking side. So on a per-tonnage perspective, full-sized ASM launchers cannot compete with PD already. Any nerf to missiles won't help them to become relevant.
My point is that full-sized ASM launchers don't need to be able to penetrate beam point-defence, they need to be able to penetrate
AMM defences, thereby making it necessary to actually equip warships with significant beam point-defence. When there's a fresh ASM salvo inbound every 5s, it becomes very very difficult for AMM defences to engage each ASM with more than one AMM. With AMM accuracy hovering around 30%, this would let a large fraction of each salvo leak through, unless of course you have
beam point-defence. Having only AMM defences would leave you vulnerable to full-size launchers, while having only beam point-defence would leave you vulnerable to box launchers.
There have been many discussions on this before, and alternatives have been proposed. But I'm 100% against removing it as a whole. It will make missile designs too plain. Making the agility tech starts higher and grows linearly rather than exponentially, or slowing down the exponential growth rate is good enough. The current system also encourages different meta at different tech level, which to me isn't a bad thing.
Relying on system on the other system is not a good game design. It gives the feeling of forcing the new system down the players' throat. Aurora's strength is its depth and flexibility, and players can play the way they like. You can easily impose the max agility amount you add to your missile and achieve what you suggested here in the current game.
I'd not fun to have an entire class of weapons (missiles) become obsolete at high tech levels either, which is what inevitably ends up happening now as AMMs become ridiculously good beyond the Fusion era. There are certainly other ways to sort this with regards to agility, but I believe that we can both agree that
this is a problem that needs to be looked at.
Also, requiring 3v1 mode to reliably shoot down ASMs makes AMMs worthless as the current early tech AMMs.
....
Your new formula will make AMM requiring (much) larger warheads than they have right now. As I mentioned before, with the other changes you propose, AMM would become cost ineffective.
AMMs are highly cost-effective against anything that isn't a micromissile, even at fairly low tech levels. Let me illustrate this with some examples at low tech (Improved Nuclear Pulse), mid tech (Internal Confinement Fusion), and high tech (Solid Core Antimatter):
Low Tech AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 22
Speed: 20,000 km/s Fuel: 25 Flight Time: 40 seconds Range: 0.82 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 0.98021 Development Cost: 98
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 440.0% 3k km/s 146.7% 5k km/s 88.0% 10k km/s 44.0% 20k km/s 22.0% 50k km/s 8.8% 100k km/s 4.4%
Low Tech ASM
Missile Size: 4.0000 MSP (10.0000 Tons) Warhead: 4 Radiation Damage: 4 Manoeuver Rating: 12
Speed: 19,500 km/s Fuel: 1,186 Flight Time: 2,572 seconds Range: 50.16 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 3.07029 Development Cost: 307
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 234.0% 3k km/s 78.0% 5k km/s 46.8% 10k km/s 23.4% 20k km/s 11.7% 50k km/s 4.7% 100k km/s 2.3%
Mid Tech AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 44
Speed: 60,000 km/s Fuel: 99 Flight Time: 33 seconds Range: 2.04 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 2.42020 Development Cost: 242
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2640.0% 3k km/s 880.0% 5k km/s 528.0% 10k km/s 264.0% 20k km/s 132.0% 50k km/s 52.8% 100k km/s 26.4%
Mid Tech ASM
Missile Size: 4.0000 MSP (10.0000 Tons) Warhead: 7 Radiation Damage: 7 Manoeuver Rating: 24
Speed: 45,800 km/s Fuel: 1,012 Flight Time: 1,104 seconds Range: 50.60 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 7.41020 Development Cost: 741
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1099.2% 3k km/s 366.4% 5k km/s 219.8% 10k km/s 109.9% 20k km/s 55.0% 50k km/s 22.0% 100k km/s 11.0%
High Tech AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 88
Speed: 120,000 km/s Fuel: 124 Flight Time: 42 seconds Range: 5.09 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 4.80040 Development Cost: 480
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 10560.0% 3k km/s 3520.0% 5k km/s 2112.0% 10k km/s 1056.0% 20k km/s 528.0% 50k km/s 211.2% 100k km/s 105.6%
High Tech ASM
Missile Size: 4.0000 MSP (10.0000 Tons) Warhead: 21 Radiation Damage: 21 Manoeuver Rating: 22
Speed: 100,000 km/s Fuel: 1,093 Flight Time: 503 seconds Range: 50.40 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 16.17040 Development Cost: 1,617
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2200.0% 3k km/s 733.3% 5k km/s 440.0% 10k km/s 220.0% 20k km/s 110.0% 50k km/s 44.0% 100k km/s 22.0%
Low tech AMMs can intercept low tech ASMs for 141% of their cost, assuming that no tactical bonuses are in effect. Mid tech AMMs can intercept mid tech ASMs for 57% of their cost, assuming that no tactical bonuses are in effect. High tech AMMs can intercept high tech ASMs for 29% of their cost, with a single AMM being sufficient to kill an ASM without tactical bonuses. This is for a
size four missile, which is absolutely on the smaller end. Even at low tech, size six missiles become cost ineffective against AMMs, and this is without even considering the effects of tactical bonuses, which would improve AMM accuracy by 20-60%. Granted, these missiles could be optimised a bit further, and I have neglected the ECM-ECCM fight for brevity, but it doesn't change the picture that much.
If my suggestions were implemented, with the base missile accuracy raised to 20%, warheads gaining efficiency with size, and the agility tech line being removed, things would look more like this: (Note that the warhead size is manually calculated.)
New Low Tech AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 [0.397 MSP] Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 20
Speed: 23,600 km/s Fuel: 32 Flight Time: 48 seconds Range: 1.13 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 0.84000 Development Cost: 84
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 472.0% 3k km/s 167.4% 5k km/s 94.4% 10k km/s 47.2% 20k km/s 23.6% 50k km/s 9.4% 100k km/s 4.7%
New Low Tech ASM
Missile Size: 4.0000 MSP (10.0000 Tons) Warhead: 4 [1.00 MSP] Radiation Damage: 4 Manoeuver Rating: 20
Speed: 20,650 km/s Fuel: 1,250 Flight Time: 2,443 seconds Range: 50.46 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 3.07000 Development Cost: 307
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 413.0% 3k km/s 137.6% 5k km/s 82.6% 10k km/s 41.3% 20k km/s 20.6% 50k km/s 8.2% 100k km/s 4.2%
New Mid Tech AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 [0.25 MSP] Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 20
Speed: 84,200 km/s Fuel: 75 Flight Time: 24 seconds Range: 2.04 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 2.36000 Development Cost: 236
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1684.0% 3k km/s 561.4% 5k km/s 336.8% 10k km/s 168.4% 20k km/s 84.2% 50k km/s 33.7% 100k km/s 16.8%
New Mid Tech ASM
Missile Size: 4.0000 MSP (10.0000 Tons) Warhead: 8 [1.00 MSP] Radiation Damage: 8 Manoeuver Rating: 20
Speed: 55,900 km/s Fuel: 1,150 Flight Time: 896 seconds Range: 50.10 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 7.59000 Development Cost: 759
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1118.0% 3k km/s 372.6% 5k km/s 223.6% 10k km/s 111.8% 20k km/s 55.9% 50k km/s 22.4% 100k km/s 11.2%
New High Tech AMM
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.5000 Tons) Warhead: 1 [0.158 MSP] Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuver Rating: 20
Speed: 192,000 km/s Fuel: 105 Flight Time: 28 seconds Range: 5.42 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 5.05000 Development Cost: 505
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3840.0% 3k km/s 1280.0% 5k km/s 768.0% 10k km/s 384.0% 20k km/s 192.0% 50k km/s 76.8% 100k km/s 38.4%
New High Tech ASM
Missile Size: 4.0000 MSP (10.0000 Tons) Warhead: 16 [1.00 MSP] Radiation Damage: 16 Manoeuver Rating: 20
Speed: 130,900 km/s Fuel: 1,325 Flight Time: 384 seconds Range: 50.39 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 17.09000 Development Cost: 1,709
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2618.0% 3k km/s 872.6% 5k km/s 523.6% 10k km/s 261.8% 20k km/s 131% 50k km/s 52.4% 100k km/s 26.2%
Low tech AMMs can now intercept low tech ASMs for 119% of their cost, with the corresponding numbers for mid and high tech being 103% and 101%, respectively. This does not take into account bonuses to accuracy or electronic warfare, and it's not an exact comparison since warhead sizes fluctuate slightly, but I think it does get the point across. The increase in accuracy across tech levels is now far more limited, and anti-ship missiles remain competitive in terms of cost even at extremely high tech.
Low tech AMMs do gain a bit of accuracy, but what's really holding them back is the launcher reload rate, which is why I suggested the base be lowered from 30s to 15s.
The current implementation actually does not make ECM or ECCM being mandatory on missiles, especially on AMMs. You can choose to add 0.25MSP of ECCM to counter the ECM on the incoming missiles, or choose to make it faster and more agile to counter that ECM. Making them multiplicative does make them mandatory past a certain tech level, since there is no way you can counter that *0% at ECM-10 (ECM-100 in your notation) without using ECCM.
This change is not strictly necessary unless the exponential growth of agility is countered. If missile base accuracy hovers around 30%, though, like I'm suggesting, then ECM-20 would be sufficient to reduce hit chances to zero. The exact formula can be whatever, I'm just saying that that needs to be taken into account and corrected for.
Would an exponential pattern work better? Like, for each level of difference between ECM and ECCM, missile accuracy will be
multiplied by 0.80 - that wouldn't zero out, but might be harder to implement.
I do think that missile agility still can be in the game, but lock it at say 100 per MSP. There are still some interesting thing you can do with slower missiles using more agility to hit their target, both for ASM and AMM. I always lock agility at 100 in all my multi-faction games and mostly in normal games as well.
A 'slow' missile should be fine as long as it's still at least three times as fast as a warship. With base missile accuracy increased to 20% and good commanders, that should still be enough to achieve near-100% accuracy against warships. You might run into problems with superfast fighters, though.
The problem with box launcher have much to do with missile fire-controls and how they work. There could also be work done in terms of fire-controls tracking or controlling targets. Fire-controls should have limited capability to track and control. You should be able to use say active sensors in an AMM to help engage enemy ASM as the AMM fire-control don't need to control the missiles perhaps at all once they programmed the missile with a target it can home in on it with it's own guidance system.
ASM fire-controls could have a capacity to control a certain number of missiles making box launchers with very small missiles more or less a none issue. It also will make full size launchers limited in the same way but active and passive sensors are better incorporated into the missile combat in addition to ECM and ECCM things can become more interesting and not just about the missile but also a sensor war.
This would be a proper solution to box-launcher spam, yes, but the biggest question, as always, would be how difficult this would be to implement and whether this will negatively affect performance (it's less of an issue for C# than VB6).