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: Lazerus
« on: August 30, 2013, 01:44:58 PM »

Quote from: Whitecold link=topic=6394. msg65453#msg65453 date=1377860324
We have been promised the introduction of shock damage which should favor larger warheads compared to many small ones.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue Lazerus, as you have observed the AI missile defense is pretty weak, and you want to make weapon systems possible which would reduce anti-missile capabilities even further by flooding them with micro missile spam.  I don't think nerfing the limited AI defenses even further is an useful thing.

It was mostly for my fighters, not for my actual anti-ship missiles, and also because at my current games tech level (Late antimatter), these sorts of things seem like they would be the norm.

And yes, I know the AI has weak missile defense, but that appears to be a flaw for every ship design of AI heritage from guided missile cruisers to FAC

While I know that it could be used to overwhelm missile defenses, lets be honest, who here doesn't have fleets that overwhelm AI missile defense as it is?
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: August 30, 2013, 05:58:44 AM »

We have been promised the introduction of shock damage which should favor larger warheads compared to many small ones.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue Lazerus, as you have observed the AI missile defense is pretty weak, and you want to make weapon systems possible which would reduce anti-missile capabilities even further by flooding them with micro missile spam. I don't think nerfing the limited AI defenses even further is an useful thing.
Posted by: Paul M
« on: August 30, 2013, 02:13:20 AM »

Quote from: Lazerus on August 28, 2013, 02:57:21 PM
See, I didn't even know that.

I was more concerned with how you can't effectively miniaturize your multiple warhead designs even in antimatter ages, despite having ridiculous tech.   As it stands, you can overwhelm NPC missile defense anyways with sheer missile amount, I notice they never seem to carry anywhere near the stocks or layer their defenses with gun-based AMM, meaning 2-3 volleys of 10-20 missiles is usually enough.

As it stands, sander-type multi-missiles are useless against any sort of good ship design because they'll likely have 10+ layers of armor, meaning you'll be wasting a smegton of resources compared to single warhead Anti-ship missiles.

The only real use for micromissiles is anti-FAC and anti-fighter, at least in my eyes, and they don't have anti-missile defense anyways.

The use of "sander" missiles is as good as a single large warhead as the armour is ablative.  How you do the damage is more or less not relevant, only the amount.   If you look at any individual engagement it matters but when you look at the situation from the point of view of multiple battles then damage is damage.  So a single warhead impact for 9 points or 9 warheads for 1 point is pretty much the same to the target.  Where the "sander" MIRV comes into its own is if you can handle 40 inbounds but not 120.  In one case you take 1-2 leaker missiles in the other you take 80+ leakers.

But the root of the problem is that armour is ablative.  So damage is damage.  Until you fix that then you are basicaly sticking a bandage over a sucking chest wound and hoping for the best.
Posted by: Lazerus
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:32:03 PM »

Quote from: wobbly link=topic=6394. msg65435#msg65435 date=1377797636
There I'd be curious whether the cost of all those missiles isn't more then the fighters your blowing-up.

I should mention those are anti-ship missiles, not anti-fighter missiles.

Those are completely different and significantly cheaper.
Posted by: wobbly
« on: August 29, 2013, 12:33:56 PM »

Quote from: Lazerus on August 29, 2013, 12:28:35 PM
True, but at least with my particular missile ships, good isn't enough, since you'd need to be taking 40+ warheads per salvo, and that's before multi-warhead missiles are involved

There I'd be curious whether the cost of all those missiles isn't more then the fighters your blowing-up.
Posted by: Lazerus
« on: August 29, 2013, 12:28:35 PM »

Quote from: Brian link=topic=6394. msg65419#msg65419 date=1377735117
Beam armed fighters are often quite capable against missiles.   They tend to have small fast firing weapons with a good tracking speed because of the fighters speed and the free x4 multiplier on the fire control.

Brian

True, but at least with my particular missile ships, good isn't enough, since you'd need to be taking 40+ warheads per salvo, and that's before multi-warhead missiles are involved
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: August 28, 2013, 07:11:57 PM »

Quote from: Lazerus on August 28, 2013, 02:57:21 PM
See, I didn't even know that.

The only real use for micromissiles is anti-FAC and anti-fighter, at least in my eyes, and they don't have anti-missile defense anyways.
Beam armed fighters are often quite capable against missiles.  They tend to have small fast firing weapons with a good tracking speed because of the fighters speed and the free x4 multiplier on the fire control.

Brian
Posted by: Lazerus
« on: August 28, 2013, 02:57:21 PM »

Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=6394. msg65406#msg65406 date=1377624821
I know, double post.

I think the ultimate culprit behind a lot of what is seen in Aurora is the AI.  The AI shoots the biggest missiles first, so it opens itself up to large armored decoys.  It shoots at the largest signature first too, bypassing the ships that are doing the actual shooting.

I'm sure there are other "exploits" that exist, just those two were the top of my head.

See, I didn't even know that.

I was more concerned with how you can't effectively miniaturize your multiple warhead designs even in antimatter ages, despite having ridiculous tech.   As it stands, you can overwhelm NPC missile defense anyways with sheer missile amount, I notice they never seem to carry anywhere near the stocks or layer their defenses with gun-based AMM, meaning 2-3 volleys of 10-20 missiles is usually enough.

As it stands, sander-type multi-missiles are useless against any sort of good ship design because they'll likely have 10+ layers of armor, meaning you'll be wasting a smegton of resources compared to single warhead Anti-ship missiles.

The only real use for micromissiles is anti-FAC and anti-fighter, at least in my eyes, and they don't have anti-missile defense anyways.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 27, 2013, 12:33:41 PM »

I know, double post.

I think the ultimate culprit behind a lot of what is seen in Aurora is the AI. The AI shoots the biggest missiles first, so it opens itself up to large armored decoys. It shoots at the largest signature first too, bypassing the ships that are doing the actual shooting.

I'm sure there are other "exploits" that exist, just those two were the top of my head.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 27, 2013, 08:50:01 AM »

Quote from: alex_brunius on August 27, 2013, 08:16:04 AM
Now I think we are starting to lose the point of how smaller then size 1 missiles would ruin balance :P

In the case of size 1 or lower missiles, normally ship-killers would be the bigger ones...

I was referencing your comment on bigger = more dangerous.

Aurora has enough flexibility to allow you to do nearly anything you want with the ships and weapons. Which is its greatest asset in my opinion.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: August 27, 2013, 08:16:04 AM »

Quote from: Erik Luken on August 27, 2013, 07:00:29 AM
Size 6 ship killers, size 8 decoys. Not necessarily :)
Now I think we are starting to lose the point of how smaller then size 1 missiles would ruin balance :P

In the case of size 1 or lower missiles, normally ship-killers would be the bigger ones...
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: August 27, 2013, 08:01:47 AM »

Quote from: Erik Luken on August 27, 2013, 07:00:29 AM
Size 6 ship killers, size 8 decoys. Not necessarily :)

Where the size 8 decoy is a great big blob of armor.

John
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 27, 2013, 07:00:29 AM »

Quote from: alex_brunius on August 27, 2013, 06:53:24 AM

Isn't that the point of a size flag? The AAM system checks all missiles and primary fires at those that are the biggest threat = biggest missiles?

Size 6 ship killers, size 8 decoys. Not necessarily :)
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: August 27, 2013, 06:53:24 AM »

Quote from: Erik Luken on August 26, 2013, 10:43:22 AM
At higher tech levels, when you have 15-20 damage per msp, having a .05 WH will give you 1 pts of damage. And you could possibly fit fuel and engine into another .05 or .15, giving you a viable missile.  So having a size flag would not work.

The best solution IMHO would be if just like the minimum of 1pts of damage to damage ship hulls, we would have a minimum of say 0.33 or 0.25 pts of dmg to knock out a missile without armor. Notice how this would give you 3-4 times as many AMMs as damaging missiles for the same size.

The AI could then also be coded to use minimal missiles in AMM design.

Another option that is less intensive in number of missiles escalating would be to introduce non-ablative armor that can absorb 1-2 points of damage without degrading. This means AI can build ships that are immune to small missile/AMM fire.

The important point is that as long as missiles and ships both share the same amount of minimum damage to be hurt it will not be possible to achieve balance.

Quote from: Erik Luken on August 26, 2013, 10:43:22 AM
If you have 4000 missiles engaging your fleet every 10 seconds, you'd want to eliminate as many of them as you could. And if you have dummy missiles interspersed with real ones, that just exacerbates the issue.
Isn't that the point of a size flag? The AAM system checks all missiles and primary fires at those that are the biggest threat = biggest missiles?
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: August 26, 2013, 12:49:54 PM »

Maybe, if he'll ever finishes that, we can see their return in Newtonian Aurora. Where a single nuke could clear a spheric kilometre of space.
I doubt that'll happen, though.
Ironically, you can still do what it should originally prevent my just creating a matryoschka missile.