Anti-Missile combat questions

[Kurt (OP)]

Steve -

I have a couple of questions about how anti-missile combat works, specifically, targeting.  Lets assume that I have ten ships, each with two anti-missile FC's and ten anti-missile launchers.  That is twenty FC's and one hundred launchers for the entire fleet.  On the other hand, I have an incoming missile wave composed of 100 individual salvoes, each consisting of eight missiles.  The defending FC's are set for 5v1, launching at targets 1 mkm's out.  The FC's can target missiles that far out, but no farther.  The incoming missiles, though, were detected by thermal sensors at 5 mkm's range.  

The defenders decide to "cheat" somewhat, and began launching anti-missiles targeted on a waypoint after detecting the incoming missile wave.  The anti-missiles have more than enough endurance to circle until the attacking missiles reach 1 mkm where they can be targeted.  Based on the defender's calculations, they will need five anti-missiles to kill each incoming missile, which means that they need to launch 4,000 anti-missiles.  Let's assume that they can launch that amount in the specified time period.  

The attacking missiles finally reach 1 mkm range from the defending fleet, and the anti-missile FC's can now target them, and as noted above, they are set to 5v1, 1 mkm.  The entire wave of 4000 anti-missiles moves out towards the incoming missile wave, and intercepts them well short of the fleet.  

Now, having laid out the entire scenario, how does Aurora handle the targeting?  I notice in the Event Log, that there are numerous entries stating something along the lines of "Fire Control shifting targets" after a missile salvo is destroyed.  

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that after my recent experiences with massed very long range missile attacks and defenses, I'm trying to "learn" from my experiences and develop better designs for missile engagements, both for offensive and defensive purposes.  I need to know how anti-missile targeting works to do that.  It seems to me, after reading the Events Log, that given the fact that the FC's shift targets after each missile salvo is destroyed, there is no sense in having more than one anti-missile FC per ship, at least if you are anticipating dealing with large massed salvoes.  If you are dealing with numerous small seperated salvoes coming in from different bearings, that might be different, though.  

Kurt

[Brian Neumann]

I like to put one FC per 5 launchers.  This does two things, the first is it gives me some redundancy for dealing with combat damage.  The second is it gives me more flexability in dealing with small salvoe sizes.  As fighters often only have 3-5 missiles per salvoe, and I can get multiple launches off against them it leaves me with fewer missiles being wasted.  By wasted I mean that any missiles that survive the interception attempt tend to be left behind the incomming missiles.  I don't know if you have noticed but many times the pd missiles are a little bit slower than the attack missiles.  This is because I try to maximise their chance to hit with agility and there is a point where going faster at the expense of agility starts to drop the chance of hitting.  Because of this I often find the pd missiles moving a couple thousand km/s slower.  If they miss their intercept but the salvoe is destroyed then they don't have a chance to catch up with the next salvoe.  If I am extremely lucky they get a chance on the next incomming salvoe, but it doesn't always work out that way.

You can get away with one FC per ship, the problem will come about with many small salvoe's as opposed to fewer large salvoe's.  Hope that helps you.

Brian

[Kurt (OP)]

I like to put one FC per 5 launchers.  This does two things, the first is it gives me some redundancy for dealing with combat damage.  The second is it gives me more flexability in dealing with small salvoe sizes.  As fighters often only have 3-5 missiles per salvoe, and I can get multiple launches off against them it leaves me with fewer missiles being wasted.  By wasted I mean that any missiles that survive the interception attempt tend to be left behind the incomming missiles.  I don't know if you have noticed but many times the pd missiles are a little bit slower than the attack missiles.  This is because I try to maximise their chance to hit with agility and there is a point where going faster at the expense of agility starts to drop the chance of hitting.  Because of this I often find the pd missiles moving a couple thousand km/s slower.  If they miss their intercept but the salvoe is destroyed then they don't have a chance to catch up with the next salvoe.  If I am extremely lucky they get a chance on the next incomming salvoe, but it doesn't always work out that way.

You can get away with one FC per ship, the problem will come about with many small salvoe's as opposed to fewer large salvoe's.  Hope that helps you.

Brian

Not really, but you have pointed out that I didn't make myself clear   .  

What I'm trying to say above, is that I suspect that it doesn't really matter how many salvoes there are, if they are all massed together in one spot.  In other words, if I have a fighter group with 10 type one fighters, each with five missiles, and they all launch at the same time at the same target, I'll have ten salvoes with five missiles each all moving as one.  I suspect that as Aurora currently works, that might as well be one salvo of fifty missiles, as the FC's will target individual salvoes within the group, but as soon as that salvo is destroyed the FC will switch targeting to a different salvo within the group until it is destroyed as well, then the next, and so on.  

What I'm trying to do is determine if my understanding of the mechanics, as stated above, is correct.  Then I can start deciding if my design strategy makes sense.  

Your point about redunancy is well taken, though.  

Kurt

[sloanjh]

What I'm trying to say above, is that I suspect that it doesn't really matter how many salvoes there are, if they are all massed together in one spot.  In other words, if I have a fighter group with 10 type one fighters, each with five missiles, and they all launch at the same time at the same target, I'll have ten salvoes with five missiles each all moving as one.  I suspect that as Aurora currently works, that might as well be one salvo of fifty missiles, as the FC's will target individual salvoes within the group, but as soon as that salvo is destroyed the FC will switch targeting to a different salvo within the group until it is destroyed as well, then the next, and so on.  

Hi Kurt,

  Is your question equivalent to the following one: "Is the switching time between targets for (automated/PD) anti-missile fire control zero seconds?"  I had always assumed a switching time of 5 seconds, but it sounds like you've observed differently.

John

[Charlie Beeler]

Kurt,  It looks like you've hit on an effective means of extreme missile intercept.  Under those conditions the single FC handling multiple loitering counter missiles appears to be a good idea...as long as you can keep the combat at long range.  

What happens if you refit for only 1 FC with those same 10 launchers and your at short range?  I think your going to want the second FC.

[Kurt (OP)]

What I'm trying to say above, is that I suspect that it doesn't really matter how many salvoes there are, if they are all massed together in one spot.  In other words, if I have a fighter group with 10 type one fighters, each with five missiles, and they all launch at the same time at the same target, I'll have ten salvoes with five missiles each all moving as one.  I suspect that as Aurora currently works, that might as well be one salvo of fifty missiles, as the FC's will target individual salvoes within the group, but as soon as that salvo is destroyed the FC will switch targeting to a different salvo within the group until it is destroyed as well, then the next, and so on.  

Hi Kurt,

  Is your question equivalent to the following one: "Is the switching time between targets for (automated/PD) anti-missile fire control zero seconds?"  I had always assumed a switching time of 5 seconds, but it sounds like you've observed differently.

John

Yes, exactly.  You've hit the nail on the head.  That does appear to be what I'm observing.  

Kurt

[Kurt (OP)]

Kurt,  It looks like you've hit on an effective means of extreme missile intercept.  Under those conditions the single FC handling multiple loitering counter missiles appears to be a good idea...as long as you can keep the combat at long range.  

What happens if you refit for only 1 FC with those same 10 launchers and your at short range?  I think your going to want the second FC.

This strategy will be featured in my next writeup.  It occurred to me that if I can take the time to assemble a large number of attack missiles, I should be able to do the same with anti-missile missiles.  It worked out very well.  

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

What I'm trying to say above, is that I suspect that it doesn't really matter how many salvoes there are, if they are all massed together in one spot.  In other words, if I have a fighter group with 10 type one fighters, each with five missiles, and they all launch at the same time at the same target, I'll have ten salvoes with five missiles each all moving as one.  I suspect that as Aurora currently works, that might as well be one salvo of fifty missiles, as the FC's will target individual salvoes within the group, but as soon as that salvo is destroyed the FC will switch targeting to a different salvo within the group until it is destroyed as well, then the next, and so on.  

Hi Kurt,

  Is your question equivalent to the following one: "Is the switching time between targets for (automated/PD) anti-missile fire control zero seconds?"  I had always assumed a switching time of 5 seconds, but it sounds like you've observed differently.

John

Yes, exactly.  You've hit the nail on the head.  That does appear to be what I'm observing.  

Kurt

I think this is occurring because Steve is handling the targetting of each anti-missile salvo as it comes up in the que.  Not reivaluating as a target disappears.

[Steve Walmsley]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that after my recent experiences with massed very long range missile attacks and defenses, I'm trying to "learn" from my experiences and develop better designs for missile engagements, both for offensive and defensive purposes.  I need to know how anti-missile targeting works to do that.  It seems to me, after reading the Events Log, that given the fact that the FC's shift targets after each missile salvo is destroyed, there is no sense in having more than one anti-missile FC per ship, at least if you are anticipating dealing with large massed salvoes.  If you are dealing with numerous small seperated salvoes coming in from different bearings, that might be different, though.  

FC's do shift targets quickly but you still benefit from multiple fire controls. Its slightly different for beams and missiles.

Before combat takes place, Aurora will designate targets for each beam fire control. As each one is about to fire it wil check to see if the targeted missile salvo still exists. If the salvo has already been destroyed, it will immediately look for a new target and fire at that one instead. For anti-missile salvos, as each one is about to move to its target it will check to see if the target still exists. If not, the parent fire control will immediately be assigned a new target within the PD parameters set for that fire control. If a new target can be found, the anti-missiles will head for it. If a new target can't be found, the fire control will not change target and they will continue to home on the location of the first target. The reason for this instant target switching is to simulate the fact that tactical officers and fire control computers will be constantly re-evaluating and re-assigning targets over the course of an increment.

However, this is only done at a fire control level, not a level of individual weapons or salvos (I'll cover self-guiding missiles later), which means the effectiveness of target switching is much greater if you have fewer weapons/missiles per fire control.

For example, if you have a ship with four quad turrets and a single fire control facing four incoming salvos of missiles the fire control will simply fire all the weapons at the closest or largest salvo. This may result in overkill. If the four turrets were equally split between two fire controls, the first would fire its eight weapons at the closest or largest salvo. If that first salvo was destroyed, the second fire control would then evaluate the results of the first attack and direct its eight weapons against whichever of the remaining salvos was the closest or largest. If the ship had a fire control for each turret, the weapons would fire in groups of four and the situation would be re-evaluated after each firing.

The mechanics are different for missiles under shipboard guidance but the results are similar. Assume an anti-missile ship with twelve launchers and one fire control. Those missiles are launched in salvos of twelve and the fire control directs them against incoming anti-ship salvos. If there are four incoming salvos, the single anti-missile salvo would be directed entirely against one of the incoming salvos. If the ship had two fire controls, each of which controlled six launchers, the anti-missiles would be fired in groups of six and each group of six would be directed against the incoming missiles in turn. If there were three fire controls, each assigned to four launchers, then anti-missiles would move in groups of four with a re-evaluation before each move. In a nutshell, more fire controls gives you greater granularity and results in more effective anti-missile combat with less overkill.

Self-guided missiles are slightly different as they have to make their own decisions without the benefit of shipboard control or an overall fire plan. Unfortunately I don't have the exact v4.0 code but I assume the new v4.1 is similar. If a missile has no assigned fire control, it looks for its own target. If that target doesn't exist, the target is unset and the missile does not attack. At the start of the next missile movement phase, it looks for a new target using its own sensors.

Steve

[waresky]

Steve,Anti-Missile (ive litte engagment atm) show very well.
targetting,simulations,auto-move and so on.
GOOD work for me.
Curiosly i found more interesting and more understandable in this new update.
new graphical effect,explosion of them r more interesting:D

[IanD]

Brian wrote
 This is because I try to maximise their chance to hit with agility and there is a point where going faster at the expense of agility starts to drop the chance of hitting.

Where is the break point? I have ion propulsion for my missiles but an agility of only 24 per msp. Under this circumstance I noticed that going faster gives one or two percent better to hit probability than slightly slower with some agility. Bearing in mind that this is a one-space missile and I have a one-point warhead (levitated pit), an endurance of about 51 seconds, a range of just over 1million ks and a speed in the range of 16800 k/s so any agility has to come at the expense of velocity.

Do AMMs need a warhead in 4.25? I recall they didn't used to in previous versions.

Regards

[Steve Walmsley]

Brian wrote
 This is because I try to maximise their chance to hit with agility and there is a point where going faster at the expense of agility starts to drop the chance of hitting.

Where is the break point? I have ion propulsion for my missiles but an agility of only 24 per msp. Under this circumstance I noticed that going faster gives one or two percent better to hit probability than slightly slower with some agility. Bearing in mind that this is a one-space missile and I have a one-point warhead (levitated pit), an endurance of about 51 seconds, a range of just over 1million ks and a speed in the range of 16800 k/s so any agility has to come at the expense of velocity.

The break point will vary between different missile designs, depending on the levels of the various technologies involved. At higher agility ratings, the agility can make a significant difference and you will reach a point where you may actually prefer speed to a higher intercept chance because making full use of agility might make the missile too slow.

Do AMMs need a warhead in 4.25? I recall they didn't used to in previous versions.

Yes, they need at least a 1 point warhead.

Steve