Planetary Missile Defenses

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Now that we can't make missile bases on planets anymore, how do you give your planets missile and anti-missile capabilities?

Since they never leave the planets orbit, would these platforms benefit from box launchers and having no magazines since the planet will probably have a spaceport or Ordinance Transfer Facility?

I'd imagine you can also go a bit crazy with the missile sizes since you can focus the platform solely on having space for a bunch of massive launchers and magazine space is not such an issue.

Is it recommended to make orbital platforms with Point Defense or can STO do PD duty just as well?

[Iestwyn]

STO can do PD; it's a setting in the STO targeting tab.

I'm not sure which is more effective or cost-efficient, but I got excited to see something I knew the answer to. XD

[Neophyte]

I did a quick comparison between a bare bones engineless no maintenance "fighter" with a 10/C3 railgun and an STO-PD unit with the same gun and sensor tech, and the ground unit seems consistently cheaper in terms of minerals and BP cost (and size of course), plus it has better chances to hit (listed anyway).

I have no idea how they would work in combat, since the chance to hit a ground unit is calculated differently than a ship and that's still beyond me.  I suspect the STO will do better there too, since it can fortify to lessen its chance to be hit.  There's also training (crew and ground unit bonuses) to consider, as well as commander bonuses, the fact that ground combat is kill/no-kill vs incremental damage like ships, etc.  That's too much math for me!

The orbital platforms are more flexible in design however, and if you make them actual ships you can refit them with better tech as you go along if you want.  A lot of it depends on your playstyle and how much micro you want to do.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

Orbital platforms require maintenance facilities and MSP, while ground units just have a wealth cost.

I'd prefer STO PD over orbital PD bases for that reason.

[StarshipCactus]

I did a quick comparison between a bare bones engineless no maintenance "fighter" with a 10/C3 railgun and an STO-PD unit with the same gun and sensor tech, and the ground unit seems consistently cheaper in terms of minerals and BP cost (and size of course), plus it has better chances to hit (listed anyway).

I have no idea how they would work in combat, since the chance to hit a ground unit is calculated differently than a ship and that's still beyond me.  I suspect the STO will do better there too, since it can fortify to lessen its chance to be hit.  There's also training (crew and ground unit bonuses) to consider, as well as commander bonuses, the fact that ground combat is kill/no-kill vs incremental damage like ships, etc.  That's too much math for me!

The orbital platforms are more flexible in design however, and if you make them actual ships you can refit them with better tech as you go along if you want.  A lot of it depends on your playstyle and how much micro you want to do.

I think the railgun fighter without an engine might not be able to shoot anything because of how tracking works.

[nuclearslurpee]

I think the railgun fighter without an engine might not be able to shoot anything because of how tracking works.

There is a minimum "racial tracking speed" based on tech level which applies to all BFCs even if the ship they are mounted on is slower than that speed or has no engines. This is necessary if for no other reason than to allow beam-armed space stations to fire non-turreted weapons effectively. I can't remember but STOs may have a bonus to tracking speed as well.

Of course you do need a BFC and ideally an active sensor to do a proper comparison but it sounds like this is the case.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I'd like to just re-iterate that I'm also looking for advice on planetary or orbital missile bases as well as missile defense. I understand STO's can't be equipped with missile launchers (which seems really weird, it's the most obvious weapon to use as a ground-to-space unit) so it seems the only way to have missile 'defenses' (probably a better word) is to have orbital units.

[nuclearslurpee]

I'd like to just re-iterate that I'm also looking for advice on planetary or orbital missile bases as well as missile defense. I understand STO's can't be equipped with missile launchers (which seems really weird, it's the most obvious weapon to use as a ground-to-space unit) so it seems the only way to have missile 'defenses' (probably a better word) is to have orbital units.

Correct. You need orbital missile bases or none at all. It seems like an obvious oversight, but it's actually a deliberate omission for balance.

[Bremen]

Fighter sized missile bases make a lot of sense to me. Your biggest concern with a stationary missile base is probably going to be them being out ranged by enemy missiles, so something small and hard to lock onto minimizes the chances of that.

If you want beam PD, it probably makes the most sense to put it on the ground. It's slightly cheaper, and much more durable. I believe it should still be able to cover the bases in orbit.


Or just do what I do and just use a few cheap ground troop formations. The way I figure it is that can handle a small enemy force, and a large one would probably be able to blast through anything I put up outside a major fleet base anyways. As Winston Churchill said, to be safe everywhere is to be strong nowhere.

[Barkhorn]

I use 1000 ton AMM stations for PPV and missile defense.  It's possible to fit 8 size 1 launchers, 2 MFC's, and magazine for a couple reloads in 1000 tons, or trade 2 of the launchers for an active sensor for the command variant, at around magneto-plasma tech.  Minimum deployment time because they're never going to be away from a settlement.  These are great because they're very easy to move with commercial hangars, they can be made en masse from small shipyards, they're small enough to be hard to get a lock on but big enough to pack a punch, and modest ordnance transfer and maintenance facilities can keep them stocked and ready to go at all times.  In important systems I cover them further with STO beam weapons. 

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I'd like to just re-iterate that I'm also looking for advice on planetary or orbital missile bases as well as missile defense. I understand STO's can't be equipped with missile launchers (which seems really weird, it's the most obvious weapon to use as a ground-to-space unit) so it seems the only way to have missile 'defenses' (probably a better word) is to have orbital units.

Correct. You need orbital missile bases or none at all. It seems like an obvious oversight, but it's actually a deliberate omission for balance.

Were missile bases really that unbalancing? Steve never struck me as they kind of dev who would remove something that made so much sense due to mere balance reasons.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Fighter sized missile bases make a lot of sense to me. Your biggest concern with a stationary missile base is probably going to be them being out ranged by enemy missiles, so something small and hard to lock onto minimizes the chances of that.

Fighter-sized bases makes sense due to their ease of production. However, I imagine you can go kinda ham wild in designing missiles meant for planet defense since you can easily store them planetside. I want to try a 24-size MIRV monster.

[Garfunkel]

I'd like to just re-iterate that I'm also looking for advice on planetary or orbital missile bases as well as missile defense. I understand STO's can't be equipped with missile launchers (which seems really weird, it's the most obvious weapon to use as a ground-to-space unit) so it seems the only way to have missile 'defenses' (probably a better word) is to have orbital units.

Correct. You need orbital missile bases or none at all. It seems like an obvious oversight, but it's actually a deliberate omission for balance.

Were missile bases really that unbalancing? Steve never struck me as they kind of dev who would remove something that made so much sense due to mere balance reasons.

Not balance. Special case. Steve has wanted to get rid of special case things in Aurora. He got rid of GB and fighter engines first, making them use same engines as ships (at which point Gunboats turned into Fast Attack Craft in terminology). Later missile engines vanished as we got more granularity for engines so now the same design window is used for all engines and they all follow the same rules. PDCs were always an anomaly, a beached ship that required a bunch of extra code and special rules.

I wouldn't mind Missile Silos returning (but not PDCs in general) because they are an interesting part of a Multi-Faction Conventional Start but I'm not quite sure how that would work, both code- and rules-wise.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I'd like to just re-iterate that I'm also looking for advice on planetary or orbital missile bases as well as missile defense. I understand STO's can't be equipped with missile launchers (which seems really weird, it's the most obvious weapon to use as a ground-to-space unit) so it seems the only way to have missile 'defenses' (probably a better word) is to have orbital units.

Correct. You need orbital missile bases or none at all. It seems like an obvious oversight, but it's actually a deliberate omission for balance.

Were missile bases really that unbalancing? Steve never struck me as they kind of dev who would remove something that made so much sense due to mere balance reasons.

Not balance. Special case. Steve has wanted to get rid of special case things in Aurora. He got rid of GB and fighter engines first, making them use same engines as ships (at which point Gunboats turned into Fast Attack Craft in terminology). Later missile engines vanished as we got more granularity for engines so now the same design window is used for all engines and they all follow the same rules. PDCs were always an anomaly, a beached ship that required a bunch of extra code and special rules.

I wouldn't mind Missile Silos returning (but not PDCs in general) because they are an interesting part of a Multi-Faction Conventional Start but I'm not quite sure how that would work, both code- and rules-wise.

If that is the case, I don't see why STO's can't equip missiles. If beam weapons can be temporary installations that can be torn down and moved, then missile launchers certainly can as well. Hell, its the beam weapons that I see as having to justify being STO weapons, not the other way around.

[Garfunkel]

I'm going to assume that this just because Steve hadn't had the time to include missile launchers as STO weapons and/or there being something in the code for missile launchers that makes things lot more complicated - like magazines for example.

But yeah, ideally we would have both missile silos as an installation and STO units that wield missile launchers and supply vehicles that act as missile magazines.