Missile warfare doctrine

[Miar (OP)]

There is a lot of information about missiles on this forum, but they are not in one place and I like to design my strategies ahead, so I would like you to look trough my understanding of missiles and find some flaws please, before I make it and find mistakes in the middle of the fight.   

1) Types of missiles, basically we have
1a) AMM (Anti-missile missile).  Size 1.  They have high speed (preferably >12000 km/s), low fuel/range, warhead of strength 1, more is not needed. 
1b) ASM (Anti-ship missile).  Size 5-6.  They carry warhead, which should be 50% of missile.  Rest is fuel/engine.  Depending on enemy these can be long range/slower missiles or short range/faster missiles. 
1c) Missiles for PDC Missile complexes.  Size 10+.  Since missiles are not influenced by atmosphere, they are good for planet defense.  Usually larger than ship missiles. 
1d) Anti planetary missiles.  Might be ship sized missiles or PDC sized missiles, they are used to destroy enemy population.  Basically have lower engines/fuel, since they will be dropped from orbit, bigger warhead or even special warhead for their purpose. 
1e) Special 2 stage missiles, like "scout" missiles with sensors on them, mines, buoys etc. 

2) Checklist for successful working missile on ship. 
2a) Missile magazine to store missiles.  How much missile storage do I want on 8000t destroyer?
2b) Missile launcher.  Usually 2 types per ship, 1size launcher for AMM and 5-6 size launcher for standard missiles. 
2c) Missile fire control.  Should be synced to launcher.  Ideal ratio 1 missile fire control to 1 launcher. 

3) Intriguing option: Missile sensor
Pro: missile will switch to new target it picks from her own sensor if original target is destroyed, or if launching ship is destroyed or MFC is damaged. 
Con: tonnage

4) Intriguing option 2: Armor
Pro: missile might survive 1 hit from enemy AMM (probably also size 1)
Con: tonnage

5) Colliers must be build to solve logistic problems of missile warfare. 

6) Missile engines. 
What approach to choose? Fuel-hungy engines (power efficiency *2,5) with larger tanks? OR standard engines (*1. 0) with normal tanks but more engines?

7) Questions:
7a) What is standard range of average anti-ship missile?
7b) What is standard speed of average anti-ship missile?
7c) What is standard range of AMM?
7d) What is standard speed of AMM?
7e) Is reduced sized launcher a good idea?


Thank you for replies fellow spacemen.  This is very complex game indeed, and even after I studied forums on this matter and I think I understand what I am going to do with my missile ships, it is better to ask now than get depressed after my first battle

[Haji]

You will get as many "well working" missile doctrines as there are people on this forum. For that matter you may get more, as I'm often using several different doctrines, most of which work well, but it depends on a situation. As such, all I can do is tell you some of the things I observed and have worked for me, but they are not universal truths, most people would disagree with them, and some of them have even been proven mathematically to be substandard choices.

1a) AMMs aren't about speed, but interception chances. That means missile agility plays an important role. AMMs with nuclear thermal engines simply do not work, nuclear pulse engines are minimum, and they begin to shine with ion engines. You also need at the very least engine power modifies 1.75x (which means 3.5 for missile engines). I do not design AMMs until I have warhead strength of at least 4, otherwise it takes too much space.
1b) ASMs most people go for size 4-6. I stick with size 3 for missiles using standard launchers, and whatever size strikes my fancy for box launchers. I rarely go above size 6 though.
1c) Missiles are expansive. Also, the larger the missile, the smaller the salvo. The smaller the salvo, the easier it is for the enemy point defense to intercept it. As such, especially in earlier game, I would not build size 10 missiles, even for PDCs, unless they have multiple warheads.
2a) When I design missile warships using standard launchers, I usually put enough magazines for 17-22 salvos.
2b) Every type of missiles should have it's own launcher, unless you have to missiles of the same size.
2c) You will never be able to achieve that ideal solution due to the size/mass of fire controls. I usually try to have no more than ten AMM launchers per FC, but all bets are off when it comes to ASM fire controls.
3) If your missiles have sensors they can seek targets on their own if their primary target is destroyed. Less wasted missiles, but you need reasonable sensor tech for that to be worthwhile. Or a really big missiles in box launchers.
6) I personally always create missile engines that are half the size of missile with maximum power output and then go with fuel, warhead and other stuff from there. That's personal preference though, but the slower the missile is, the easier it is for point defense to nail it, the longer it takes for it to reach the target giving the point defense more time to nail it (by firing more salvos of AMMs) and the higher the chance the enemy will evade it.

7a) Depends on your sensors. If you need to put 500T FC on your 8000T destroyer to utilize full range of your missiles, then it's not worth the bother. I go for 100-150 million kilometers, but it's personal preference. Spoilers and NPRs may outrange you.
7b) Depends on technology level. On ion tech it's usually 20 000 - 27 000 kps, but it can be as high as 30 000 kps.
7c) Depends on technology level and fire control. On ion drive tech I usually have 4.5mln kilometers range because that's what you'll get with 0.01 missile size put into fuel storage. My fire controls have much lower range than that however, closer to 1 mln kilometers, or even lower. In later techs you'd want to go for at least a couple of million kilometers range.
7d) It's mostly about interception chances (which means not only speed but agility as well) and it varies greatly depending on technology level. On ion tech it can be anywhere from 25 000 ksp to 35 000 kps, depending on your warhead size, engine/agility ratio and engine power multiplier.
7e) Depends on your doctrine. Reduced size launchers are used very rarely. Box launchers are extremely common, as it is very easy to defend against enemies launching small, but multiple waves of missiles (as in, standard sized launchers and large magazines). Sure, you'll carry less ammunition overall, and will have to go back to base with  large enough maintenance facilities to re-arm, but for all instances and purposes box launchers are the only way to guarantee that you'll break through enemy active defenses. You may still play, and successfully, with normal launchers, but you will need a lot of them and a lot of ships.

[Father Tim]

The Short Version
It all depends on you, and what you want, your play style, and several things that are out of your control.  Rule 1 of Aurora combat is "90% of fights will be decided before ever a shot is fired, because one side has an overwhelming advantage in tonnage, tech, speed, position, or all of the above."  Your missiles should be agile enough to hit opponents, fast enough to avoid being shot down, explodey* enough to rapidly inflict serious damage, long-ranged enough to reach your enemies, and numerous enough to win the fight.

*A highly technical term equating to warhead strength.

Many Aurora players will say half the fun of the game is learn the answers to all your questions by building some ships and fighting some people.  Granted, it's not fun to realize you've completely forgotten to install magazines in your missile cruisers, but that's what SM mode is for.



1.  You can have whatever types of missiles you want, in whatever sizes.  That's beauty of Aurora - nigh infinite customizability.  In general, you want your missiles to be as small as possible while still being able to do the job required of them, since smaller missiles equal more speed, faster reloading, more missiles in the same amount of magazine space, fewer resources to build, etc.  This is why anti-missile missiles are almost always size 1 (and when they're not, they probably should be).

Once you've started building units to fire your missiles however, it increases the opportunity cost of changing missile sizes.  If you started with size 6 missile launchers and increased your tech enough to build a missile with the exact same stats that's only size 4, while it might be nice to put 50% more missiles in space doing so requires you to rip out all your size 6 missile launchers, and quit using your stockpile of size 6 missiles.  As a result almost everybody just designs a better size 6 missile and goes on with it.

Since PDCs reload missiles at twice the rate of ships, many players build a missile twice the size of their 'standard' attack missile to take advantage of this.  Many others prefer to simplify logistics, have only a single attack missile line, and just fire twice as fast with PDCs.

Non-Trans-Newtonian starts used to (and will again at some point) give you free ICBM bases (to meet your population's initial demand for planetary protection) with size 12 launchers, so such starts encourage you to build a line of size 12 missiles to make use of them.


2.  Magazine space should be sync'd to missile size, salvo size, and intended role.  Anti-missile escorts need more magazine space, but they also need enough launchers and fire controls to effectively engage an incoming salvo - which you can then 'cheat' by always assigning AMM escorts in pairs or trios.

Missile Fire Control to launcher ratio likewise varies by role, with AMM escorts tending towards more (so they can engage multiple salvoes) and Missile Cruisers tending to three-ish (redundancy is good to avoid a mission kill, but unless your cruiser is engaging a horde of smaller ships it's probably firing a full salvo at one target to saturate point defense).

Dual-purpose ships (offensive missiles and AMM) obviously need at least one MFC of each type, and probably two each to keep fighting after damage.


3.  Con:  Missiles with sensors will (currently) attack *ANY* race's ships other than yours.  To quote The Hunt for Red October, "WARS have begun that way Mr. Ambassador!"  See Steve's 'Solarian Empires' campaign for a couple of examples.


4.  The 'Pro' is more that the missile may survive beam PD fire - missile-on-missile hits will soon may (hopefully) become auto-kills.


5.  Colliers can help with ammunition supply problems, but the main logistics difficulty with missiles is building them quickly enough, in large enough quantities (which requires sufficient minerals).  Many an empire has been crushed by NPRs or spoiler races after running out of missiles.


6.  Whatever gives your missiles the range and speed you desire.  That's what the 'Missile Design Window' is for - play around.


7.  Varies tremendously by tech.
7a.  Ideally, long enough to launch on your enemies from outside their own range.
7b.  Ideally, fast enough to prevent your enemies from getting more than one AMM launch/PD shot.
7c.  Ideally, long enough to get 5 launches vs an incoming salvo  (and also, greater than your enemies beam weapon range in case you have to use them offensively).
7d.  Ideally, fast enough to get 5 launches vs an incoming salvo  (and also, fast enough that your opponents only get a single PD shot against them if you have to/choose to use them offensively).

Note that all of the above depend on relative ship speeds - If you're faster than your enemies you can launch form as little as 1,000 km outside of their range, but if they're faster you need to stay outside of their range for the entire flight time of your missiles, or risk destruction at the hands of a dead ship.

7e.  Sometimes.  If you pursue the tech line all the way to Box Launchers it opens up some interesting tactical options, and researching at least some reduced size is about the only way to fit missiles onto fighters.  In general, the only time you're really worried about rate-of-fire is launching anti-missiles, and assaulting fixed defenses (like warp points and bases).  In deep-space battles you can almost always shoot your magazines dry before your first salvo hits, so you do some version of shoot-wait-look to evaluate your initial salvo(es) success before following up - at which point reload time is irrelevant and throwing a bigger salvo is beneficial (unless your targets are easily destroyed by less that a full salvo)

One thing to keep in mind with Box Launchers is that unless you're launching them all in a single strike, you'd have been better off with magazines and reduced-size launchers.


It's best of all to build some ships and fight some bad guys - try not to get depressed.  Use SM mode and Instant yourself some tech, Fast OOB yourself some ships, and Add some Precursors to your system, and go nuts!

(Note:  You'll lose, but hope fully you'll learn something.  If not, then Fast OOB yourself ten times as many ships and fight some more.  Once you learn something, design new ships, rinse and repeat.)

[ZimRathbone]

as with both the other respondents, there are many many valid approaches (which will vary according to the circumstances you find yourself in but here is my tuppenyworth...

The most important decision you need to make when creating a missile is speed.  This dictates much of the tactics in employing the missile.  I tend to build all of my ASM missiles of a given generation to a common speed so that I can more easily co-ordinate strikes onto a target at the same time. I frequently maintain the same missile speed across two or even three generations to make this easier. The exception is AMMs which are as fast as I can manage with a good hit probability (ie agility).

I do frequently use reduced size launchers (0.25 size /100x reload) for things like minelayers or probe launchers where repeat salvos are not all that important or not time critical.  They are also usually pretty big (size 12 or occasionally size 24).

Box launchers are required for parasite craft whether they be  fighters, bombers or whatever you want, but I dont tend to use them anywhere else due to the logistical limitations.  (my Battle Riders usually use regular launchers, but I have used box designs occasionally)

Regular anti ship launchers tend to be size 6 for me.  Partly because that's the sensor cutoff - bigger missiles will tend to be detected earlier by the target, but also its a good size to get a fair range and big bang, but not so big as to be generating a logistical nightmare in building up stockpiles.  I have tried smaller (size 4) occasionally and they can work well too, but I like getting big bangs when I hit.  I have had considerable success with Size 12 and size 24 missiles on fighters attacking ships with limited AMM capability (particularly some of the spoilers), but this is very situation dependent.

[blue_emu]

In addition to helping you evade PD, one other advantage to having fast missiles is that you learn the result of your salvo earlier.  The earlier you get that info, the easier it is to plan your next move.

In a way, ship-to-ship missile combat can be compared to submarine warfare.  There are quite a few similarities. . .  fixed salvo sizes, a long run-in to target compared to launching time, limited on-board ammunition, the importance of position (are you shooting down-the-throat, so that your missile's rate of approach is the SUM of the speeds; or shooting up-the-kilt, so that the rate of approach is the DIFFERENCE of the speeds?), the advantage of stealth (which makes missile-armed Fighters so powerful, since they can usually launch from outside detection range), and so on.

[Cocyte]

> 1a) AMM (Anti-missile missile).  Size 1.  They have high speed (preferably >12000 km/s), low fuel/range, warhead of strength 1, more is not needed. 

indeed, but as already stated, agility is a major factor for AMMs. My AMMs are often slowers than my ASMs


> 1b) ASM (Anti-ship missile).  Size 5-6.  They carry warhead, which should be 50% of missile.  Rest is fuel/engine.  Depending on enemy these can be long range/slower missiles or short range/faster missiles. 

I am quite fond of large salvoes of size 4/WH4 ASMs - but I'm still using a pre-shock damage version. The WH is only 1/4 of the size of the missile however. For ASM, it is better to focus more on speed than on raw interception rate - as speed will reduce the attrition from ennemies defences.
Note that some size of WH are usually considered "better" than others : 4, 9, 16, 25... This is due to the "damage profile" of the missiles - a triangular shaped explosion. For example, a size 8 missile will break 2 layers of armor, while a size 9 will make 1 damage to the next layer. If the target only have 2 layers of armor, then the later will do internal damage right away.


> 1c) Missiles for PDC Missile complexes.  Size 10+.  Since missiles are not influenced by atmosphere, they are good for planet defense.  Usually larger than ship missiles. 

I use the same kind of missiles as usual to reduce the logistical issues. Most, if not all, of my missiles-PDCs are anti-missiles defence bases.
As usual, it is a matter of taste


> 1d) Anti planetary missiles.  Might be ship sized missiles or PDC sized missiles, they are used to destroy enemy population.  Basically have lower engines/fuel, since they will be dropped from orbit, bigger warhead or even special warhead for their purpose. 

Sorry, but the use of anti-population warhead is forbidden by Federal Parliament Resolution 2054-02-21.12
(Matter of taste - I like my future imperial colonies clean from nasty radiations, thanks you)


> 1e) Special 2 stage missiles, like "scout" missiles with sensors on them, mines, buoys etc. 

You can also use single stage buoys. Some size-4 active sensor buoys makes for very cost efficient jump-point sentries.


> 2a) Missile magazine to store missiles.  How much missile storage do I want on 8000t destroyer?

Matter of taste as well. 8000t is starting to be a large ship, so i'ld say at least enough for 4-5 reloads for assault ships, and 9-10 for area defence ships. It is easy to abort an assault and get back to the nearest collier for reloading if you run out of ASMs, a bit less easy to stop defending against enemy missiles if you run out of AMMs...


> 2b) Missile launcher.  Usually 2 types per ship, 1size launcher for AMM and 5-6 size launcher for standard missiles. 

I am more on the specialized ship side. Either pure attack ship (with maybe a couple of CIWS for defense) or pure area defence ships with AMMs and beam defenses.

> 2c) Missile fire control.  Should be synced to launcher.  Ideal ratio 1 missile fire control to 1 launcher. 

I find that 1 MFC per 2-4 launchers is usually enough. NEVER put only one MFC on a significantly-sized ship - one unlucky/lucky hit (depending of the point of view) and your 8000t ship is now useless for the time to repair the MFC...

> 3) Intriguing option: Missile sensor
Useless on AMMs, but a very useful option for ASMs if you aim for the "overwhelming salvo" method. My ASMs have roughly 0.5 MSP dedicated to sensors, either active of thermal. Note that you don't need a very large sensor radius for those - your missile only have to detect the rest of the fleet that should be 5s away (10000 km range for low tech, 20000/30000 km range is usually far enough)

Furthermore, it open some funny options... (Keeping your sensors down, shooting such missiles at a waypoint where your targets lurks and delete the WP once the missiles are close - A bit difficult but very funny to perform)

> 4) Intriguing option 2: Armor

Never used it. you need at least a whole MSP dedicated to armor for it to be just taken into account (0.99 armor is the same as 0)

> 5) Colliers must be build to solve logistic problems of missile warfare. 

Indeed. By default, Colliers are military ships - but you can still use civilian engines to reduce the fuel use. Using reduced thermal emission engines might also be a good idea if you want them to go in the contested system...
 
> 6) Missile engines. 
> What approach to choose? Fuel-hungy engines (power efficiency *2,5) with larger tanks? OR standard engines (*1. 0) with normal tanks but more engines?

For AMMs, this is a no brainer : the largest multiplier you can get, as you will get far enough range with less than 0.1 MSP of fuel.
For ASMs, better to err on the large multiplier size as well - but you should consider reducing this multiplier depending of the range you want.

> 7a) What is standard range of average anti-ship missile?

Matter of taste once again. I'm usually fine with my standardized 50M Km range. My advise would be to find a range you are confortable with and keeping it when upgrading missiles and MFCs
> 7b) What is standard speed of average anti-ship missile?

Depend of technology. You need at least Ion tech for decent missiles however.
For information, at MFD tech, my ASMs flies at 42000 km/s (with a 4.35 multiplier)

> 7c) What is standard range of AMM?
640kb and 5M km should be enough for anyone. you can settle for less, but there's little need to go for more...

> 7d) What is standard speed of AMM?
Depend of technology again. Might be slower than the same technology ASMs however. (At MFD tech, my AMMs runs at 40000 km/s)

7e) Is reduced sized launcher a good idea?
For me, hell yes!
I mostly use the 3 extremes of the spectrum :
- Box launchers are great for small parasite ships.
- 0.25 size /100x reload are perfect for non-time critical special operations (Scout probes, mine laying, ...), but I've used them early on as the poor guy box launcher : A wolf pack of medium range 1000t FACs and a collier lurking in the edge of the system, just shot all the missiles and then go reload at the collier (assuming the pack is not followed)
- 0.75 size / 4x reload are good to save some room for more launchers - ergo bigger salvo - while still having a decent enough reloading time for ASMs. You should seriously consider this option for AMMs as well once your reloading tech is high enough to negate the reduced loading time.