Author Topic: I think I create too slow missiles  (Read 1460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GetStqned

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
I think I create too slow missiles
« on: September 17, 2016, 12:16:46 PM »
I have Magnetic Fusion Drive Technology , and that's is the design of my missile...

Missile Size: 4.97 MSP  (0.2485 HS)     Warhead: 12    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 32
Speed: 14700 km/s    Engine Endurance: 6.7 hours   Range: 354.3m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.0872
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 470.4%   3k km/s 128%   5k km/s 94.1%   10k km/s 47%
Materials Required:    3x Tritanium   3.0872x Gallicite   Fuel x275

Development Cost for Project: 609RP


For as advanced technology, 14700 km/s is not much right?
I found an enemy I easily beat them over 20 or 10 years, I beat the two ships with 20 missiles to a single ship , my older missile design advancing at 9000km / s , and i finish by "atomize their colony" , they are not reappeared , then one day one of my exploration ship encounter on of them with missiles advancing at 45000km/s !! while technological inferiority was then disembark before my fleet , I would know where I screwed up, for the missile engine : (i don't know chere i find the design so so I'll give you the info from View Technology)
3.645 EP Magnectic Fusion Drive
Size : 2.16
Cost : Who care ?
Power: 3.645
Fuem Efficiency : 11.27
"An army of lions led by a deer and less formidable than an army of deer led by a lion"
 

Offline Tree

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 53
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2016, 12:41:15 PM »
Put in less fuel, a smaller warhead (like 4 or 9), less maneuver rating and put on your max power/efficiency modifier on the engine. A range of 100~150mkm should be good enough.
Less fuel because your range is enormous and not worth the low speed.
Warheads of 4 or 9 because they have better damage templates for penetration (a warhead of 4 would destroy 3 box of armor off the first layer and one off the second, one of 9 would destroy 5 boxes on the first layer, 3 on the second, and one on the third) which would allow you to hit the target's innards for cheaper and with greater speed.
Maneuver rating isn't useless, but hit chance depends on both it and speed, there are a lot of interesting sweet spots, you could have a much greater speed with lower maneuver for similar enough chances to hit, try messing with it. You can get interesting results even with a maneuver rating of 10~15 if you have a high enough speed.
The lower range would be there just because of the modifications, you just can't get it all. But it's better to have a lower range and higher chances to hit than the opposite, I think.

And with magnetic confinement fusion drive tech, ~15000km/s should really more be the speed of your military ships rather than that of your missiles.
 

Offline GetStqned

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2016, 01:04:01 PM »
15000 km/s for my ships ? oO I have 25000t ships with a speed of 3376 km/s , my fastest ship have a tonnage of 15000t and advance at 5626 km/s , I need what tonnage with what louse boost engines for ships has 15000 km/s ? * _ * , For missiles I will follow your advice thank you

EDIT : Just a think i forget , the power boost modifiers i use is 2.22 , i need to put more ? I was afraid that fuel consumption becomes too large , it is already tight with 2.22 so with more...
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 01:28:14 PM by GetStqned »
"An army of lions led by a deer and less formidable than an army of deer led by a lion"
 

Offline Xkill

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2016, 03:17:43 PM »
When I design ships or missiles, I like to reserve a percentage of the vehicle's mass to the engines as it makes it easier to design them since I don't need to keep worrying about speed. It also tends to make speeds equal across the fleet. I'd say that you should aim for around 20%~50% for both ships and missiles, depending on what role you have in mind for them.

Here's an example of a missile designed with MagPlasma tech, 5x power modifier and 0.6 fuel efficiency:

Quote
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 5 MSP  (0.25 HS)     Warhead: 7    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 40000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 42 minutes   Range: 100.3m km
Cost Per Missile: 4.25
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 400%   3k km/s 130%   5k km/s 80%   10k km/s 40%
Materials Required:    1.75x Tritanium   2.5x Gallicite   Fuel x1875

Development Cost for Project: 425RP
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 4.97 MSP  (0.2485 HS)     Warhead: 12    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 32
Speed: 14700 km/s    Engine Endurance: 6.7 hours   Range: 354.3m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.0872
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 470.4%   3k km/s 128%   5k km/s 94.1%   10k km/s 47%
Materials Required:    3x Tritanium   3.0872x Gallicite   Fuel x275

Development Cost for Project: 609RP

While you missiles are not that bad, (good range, accuracy and damage) they are very slow, which means they will be shot down very easily. Even the unturreted (slow tracking speed), Railgun flak PD on my ships would have a 42% chance of shooting one of your missiles down at point-blank range.

Assuming that you would be shooting at a 3 Frigate group of mine (3 guns per ship, firing 4 shots each for a total of 36 shots group wide) their PD would be able to shoot down 15 missiles of yours compared to just 5 of mine

Now the one I designed has almost equal accuracy, lower damage and far lower range, but they should be much harder to shoot down (and will therefore score more hits). The aforementioned PD has a 15% chance of shooting one of these down.
 

Offline GetStqned

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2016, 03:43:18 PM »
Following your advice, I managed to make these missiles :

Missile Size: 4 MSP  (0.2 HS)     Warhead: 6    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 28
Speed: 50000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 67 minutes   Range: 200.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 5.408
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1400%   3k km/s 448%   5k km/s 280%   10k km/s 140%
Materials Required:    1.5x Tritanium   3.908x Gallicite   Fuel x1000

Development Cost for Project: 541RP

faster , untouchable , powerful  thanks guys but that does not really answer my question for the engine missile is a smaller version then put the power boost modifiers at high levels is cool but with real military engine consumption becomes unbearable , there's a balance of value or a estimation between 20 and 10 something like that ?
"An army of lions led by a deer and less formidable than an army of deer led by a lion"
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 460
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2016, 05:16:43 PM »
With freely scaleable missile engines, your most efficient propulsion setup uses 31% of engine weight for fuel.
With a fixed engine size (ship or missile), your most efficient propulsion setup uses 40% of engine weight for fuel.
Short-ranged high-performance missiles will often use less fuel, because the sweet ratio with your highest power multiplier results in excessive range and you're rather have more speed.
 

Offline GetStqned

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2016, 06:27:08 PM »
Thank you guys, I 'm going to test it , it gives new perspectives and I can already see the design in my head =D
"An army of lions led by a deer and less formidable than an army of deer led by a lion"
 

Offline TallTroll

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2016, 02:43:34 PM »
Although there are a lot of considerations, I generally devote about 50% of ASM missile space to engines, about 25% to WH, and the balance to AG / fuel. Once upon a time, someone did some maths and found that getting agility to 11 gets the best bang for your MSP (for ASMs. AMMs have different design constraints)
 

Online alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 806
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2016, 04:50:43 AM »
Once upon a time, someone did some maths and found that getting agility to 11 gets the best bang for your MSP (for ASMs. AMMs have different design constraints)

It's impossible to "do the math" on this one since they impact different things and both are thus "best bang for MSP" in different situations.

Take for example a slow target which you have 100% chance to hit due to your speed alone, but that has fairly fast tracking PD turrets. Any Agility at all in that case is useless and speed is what you need to lower the chance to have the missiles shot down.

Then compare it with the other example of the ASMs targeting very fast FAC/Fighters that don't have any point defense at all. As soon as your agility / MSP tech is above a certain amount more agility will then always be better then more speed ( assuming you got enough speed to catch them ).

So it's impossible to say that one or the other is better, it depends on your intended targets!
 

Offline TallTroll

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2016, 05:14:45 AM »
>>  it depends on your intended targets!

The point of that exercise was that you were designing an ASM for use against unknown targets, not least because they may end up being ships that haven't even been designed, let alone built, at the time you are designing the missile. Given all the other design constraints on any missile, it is generally better to minimise the MSP devoted to agility (for ASMs at least), because speed is a higher order determinant of hit chances.

However, since any missile has a base agility of 10, paying for 1 extra AG gives the maximum benefit in terms of hit %age to MSP ratio. Paying for an upgrade to 20 AG costs 10x as much MSP, whilst only doubling the AG stat. Paying to go up to 11 gets you a 10% increase in performance, for 1/10th the MSP.

Obviously, if you have any information on the targets you want to fire the ASMs at, you can make much better assumptions about what performance you need / want, but in the case where you just have no idea at all, going to 11 AG will usually give better average results for the smallest investment of MSP
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 460
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2016, 05:20:58 AM »
I did the math.
Ideal Agility MSP to maximise accuracy on a given weight budget for (engine + agility) is E-10S/A
where E is engine tonnage, S is total missile size, A is your agility rating per MSP
This will need to be adjusted for rounding issues, you want to hit (n+0,5)S agility points.

I'd use less in practice. More engine, less agility
- makes the missile faster, thus harder to intercept as alex_brunius stated. May have other advantages.
- increases range (assuming it means a bigger engine)
- is usually cheaper

My baseline is 40% engine, 30% warhead, 20% agility, 10% fuel. That's actually on the edge of too much agility, but keeps things simple: I know what to skimp on if I need to round the warhead up to a nice number or fit a sensor.
 

Offline TallTroll

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2016, 05:31:10 AM »
>> Ideal Agility MSP to maximise accuracy on a given weight budget

That only applies in the case of wanting to maximise accuracy. For a totally blind design, maximising speed, whilst preserving some accuracy may be a better bet, since increased speed might allow you to engage a larger range of targets. If you have no information at all on what targets are out there, it might prove a better design target to prioritise missile speed.
 

Online alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 806
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2016, 05:54:54 AM »
That only applies in the case of wanting to maximise accuracy.

That was exactly my point.

Fine, you can maximize one stat or aspect of the missile (like accuracy) and do the math for that...

But you can't maximize "bang for the MSP", since that basically means you have to also juggle things like warhead size (the bang), chance PD will shoot down the missile, different target speeds, range (for fuel needs), and all other unknowns that make it a pointless exercise.


I do certainly agree with the general "When in doubt go for speed" approach though, since it's always helps with hitting the target ( even if agility helps more in some situations ).
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 05:57:04 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 460
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2016, 05:57:35 AM »
...

Yes, as I already stated after the calculations.

The point of maximum accuracy is useful to know as an upper bound. Until we reach it, we have a trade-off between speed and accuracy.
More agility than that, and we lose both speed and accuracy: detrimental unless our needs specifically require a slow missile that still needs to hit moving targets.
 

Online alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 806
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: I think I create too slow missiles
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2016, 05:59:08 AM »
Yes, as I already stated after the calculations.

I'm not replying to you. I'm replying to TallTroll.... ( who made the claim about a certain agility being the best bang for MSP ).
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51