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: Llamageddon
« on: October 21, 2020, 10:35:36 AM »

My engine tech is pretty good, but I think you're right about the boost, I can only go 400% on missiles. 600% would get me better results. With the next warhead technology this would still leave me plenty of room to add fuel for range and still do some decent damage & have much more efficient AMMs.
Posted by: Droll
« on: October 21, 2020, 10:30:20 AM »

Quote from: Llamageddon on October 21, 2020, 10:24:48 AM
I'm glad you mentioned railguns. One of the reasons my missile tech is so behind is that I focussed on railguns, so they might be a better use of space than AMMs and launchers, though it seems like it might be a more efficient use to make dedicated missile frigates - with AMMs or not - and keep my railguns on faster corvettes that will have a higher tracking speed to take down missiles. I still need to do a lot of tweaking, I'm glad I posted my first missile frigate design here even though it sounds like they were woefully under-engineered and my missile tech was far too low for them to be really effective. It's great to get all this useful feedback.

I think the problem isn't missile tech specifically, it might be your engine tech. Missile engine boost I think goes to 3 times your normal boost. For missiles I rarely find myself going below 600% boost when I actually have the tech. Though be mindful that your missile range will suffer. Other than that get better engines.
All the parameters of your missiles look ok if not good. Its just that they are too damn slow to be able to hit anything.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 21, 2020, 10:24:48 AM »

I'm glad you mentioned railguns. One of the reasons my missile tech is so behind is that I focussed on railguns, so they might be a better use of space than AMMs and launchers, though it seems like it might be a more efficient use to make dedicated missile frigates - with AMMs or not - and keep my railguns on faster corvettes that will have a higher tracking speed to take down missiles. I still need to do a lot of tweaking, I'm glad I posted my first missile frigate design here even though it sounds like they were woefully under-engineered and my missile tech was far too low for them to be really effective. It's great to get all this useful feedback.
Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: October 20, 2020, 11:02:47 PM »

Quote from: Michael Sandy on October 20, 2020, 08:57:10 PM
And running out of missiles and not having enough to actually KILL an enemy fleet is even more expensive

I always have some sort of AMM gauss or Railguns that could potentially be used to kill if I run out of missiles. Of course it's dangerous but I haven't told humans to go out conquering space, have I?!

Oh, wait a sec...
Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: October 20, 2020, 08:57:10 PM »

"How much range does a missile need?"  Is a very important question indeed.

The greater the range, the more missile BP it takes to do a point of damage.  Two-stage missiles can cost only slightly more than the attack stage of the missile, at the cost of far greater magazine space.  One philosophy is to have very good anti-missile defenses and use your missiles at close range to take out any enemy beam ships that outrange your own.

You will often want the ability to have SOME long ranged capability, to probe enemy missile defenses so you know how many missiles you will need per target.  And to take out enemy scouts.  Or enemy strikefighter/FACs before they can withdraw and rearm.

Having a fleet philosophy that relies on killing the enemy from beyond its range requires a significant commitment to ordnance factories, and war tempo is determined by your stockpiles, ability to use obsolescent munitions efficiently, and your production.  It is very satisfying to win with missiles without casualties, but the logistics cost can be very high.  Overkill is expensive.  And running out of missiles and not having enough to actually KILL an enemy fleet is even more expensive.  Or worse, overkilling the visible enemy, and some shmuck enemy ship turns out to be out of range and eats your whole empty fleet.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 20, 2020, 02:05:52 AM »

There is nothing wrong with carrying both ASM and AMM launchers on the same ship, even with relatively small ships. The fact that you can weight missiles in your magazines to favour one or the other is actually a pretty powerful tool in your toolbox that way. I never put huge dedicated sensors on any ship and usually regard sensors on my capital ships as secondary. My main sensors are always carried by smaller sensor scouts.

Although I also always rely on fighters for offensive missiles in general... ASM missiles on my capital ship are usually only shorter ranged self defence weapons not meant to actually attack the opponent with as a main strategy.

I do agree though that the missile design are pretty underwhelming.
Posted by: StarshipCactus
« on: October 19, 2020, 09:44:41 PM »

I agree with the other posters here. Volume of missiles in your volley is more important than having multirole ships. In my missile fleets, I always have a dedicated AMM ship and ASM ship. It also allows you to take some of those extra sensors off your ship.
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: October 19, 2020, 03:11:48 PM »

Quote from: Droll on October 19, 2020, 03:02:44 PM
Quote from: Llamageddon on October 19, 2020, 03:01:12 PM
Thanks, it sounds like picking a fight would answer a lot of my questions  ;D. I have 400% missile engine boost at the moment, it sounds like I should research something higher first. I think I'll lose some warhead, maybe remove the agility and put a bigger engine on it. My current ship redesign has 5 launchers but I probably need a bigger magazine as 20 salvos doesn't seem like much.

Thanks for the tip on squares, I had heard that somewhere but forgotten about it. My maths is a bit rusty, but squares would be 1, 4, 9, 16? If I should be aiming for 4 or 9 then with my current warhead tech I probably want to design a smaller missile and aim for 4 warhead.

5 launchers still sounds completely inadequate. Though its a damn sight better than two. For a frigate I would have 10 launchers minimum. At least then you could expect to hit a couple missiles per salvo assuming the missiles are good.

For ASMs, your best bet would be the 30% launchers (if you want onboard reloads). Yes they have a lengthy reload, but in a missile exchange volley weight outweighs rate of fire tremendously. For AMMs, aim for the smallest size that you can achieve a 5s (or 10s if you choose) RoF.
Posted by: Droll
« on: October 19, 2020, 03:02:44 PM »

Quote from: Llamageddon on October 19, 2020, 03:01:12 PM
Thanks, it sounds like picking a fight would answer a lot of my questions  ;D. I have 400% missile engine boost at the moment, it sounds like I should research something higher first. I think I'll lose some warhead, maybe remove the agility and put a bigger engine on it. My current ship redesign has 5 launchers but I probably need a bigger magazine as 20 salvos doesn't seem like much.

Thanks for the tip on squares, I had heard that somewhere but forgotten about it. My maths is a bit rusty, but squares would be 1, 4, 9, 16? If I should be aiming for 4 or 9 then with my current warhead tech I probably want to design a smaller missile and aim for 4 warhead.

5 launchers still sounds completely inadequate. Though its a damn sight better than two. For a frigate I would have 10 launchers minimum. At least then you could expect to hit a couple missiles per salvo assuming the missiles are good.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 19, 2020, 03:01:12 PM »

Thanks, it sounds like picking a fight would answer a lot of my questions  ;D. I have 400% missile engine boost at the moment, it sounds like I should research something higher first. I think I'll lose some warhead, maybe remove the agility and put a bigger engine on it. My current ship redesign has 5 launchers but I probably need a bigger magazine as 20 salvos doesn't seem like much.

Thanks for the tip on squares, I had heard that somewhere but forgotten about it. My maths is a bit rusty, but squares would be 1, 4, 9, 16? If I should be aiming for 4 or 9 then with my current warhead tech I probably want to design a smaller missile and aim for 4 warhead.

P.S. You guessed correctly, my engine tech is about 2-3 tech levels above my current missile tech. Back to the drawing board.
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: October 19, 2020, 02:52:21 PM »

Quote from: Llamageddon on October 19, 2020, 01:50:57 PM
Would these be a bit more like it for ASMs or should I get the speed even higher?

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 5.000 MSP  (12.5000 Tons)     Warhead: 7    Radiation Damage: 7    Manoeuvre Rating: 14
Speed: 17,280 km/s     Fuel: 1,915     Flight Time: 23 minutes     Range: 23.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 4.2625     Development Cost: 426
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 241.9%   3k km/s 80.6%   5k km/s 48.4%   10k km/s 24.2%

Materials Required
Tritanium  1.7505
Gallicite  2.512
Fuel:  1915

This is still a very bad missile for magneto-plasma tech. I suspect your missile tech is not on par with your engine tech. If that is the case, you may want to get a few more missile techs before designing missiles. Similarly, your AMM is also too inaccurate, and its range is probably too long for this tech.

An opponent with a similar tech level would have 16kkm~20kkm/s BFC tracking speed (4x). So these missiles are extremely easy to shoot down by PD.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: October 19, 2020, 02:18:28 PM »

As with all things in Aurora (but especially missile combat), what you need depends on what your opponent is fielding.

How much range does a missile need? As much range as is necessary for your ships to shoot without getting killed first. If you can shrug off enemy missile fire indefinitely via energy PD, you can put however much range you want and it will be fine. If you need to avoid entering, say, 20 million klicks b/c they will start spamming hundreds of AMMs at you, then you need more than 20million klicks range.

How fast does a missile need to be? Fast enough to get through whatever PD they are using, while balancing the need to include a bit of agility to improve hit chance if you DO get through the PD. Personally, I rarely bother with agility on my attack missiles. Agility's effect is divided by the size of the missile, so it takes a large amount of space to get anything. I usually pick a range and warhead size, then make my missile as fast as possible while meeting those lower bounds. I miss more hits than if I was using the optimum balance of engine and agility, but in exchange I get through PD more easily.

How big a warhead do I need? Balancing this with hit chances is important, but practically speaking you want warhead sizes that are a square number or 1 less than a square. Since a square # will do 1 damage to that armor layer, while 1 off square does 3 damage at its last layer.

This missile still seems pretty bad to me. The warhead is really big, but it's still just so damn slow. Do you not have engine boost tech? I'd be expecting you to reach twice that speed with MP tech.

Also, salvo density is king! 2 launchers is just sad. Try miniaturized, reduced reload rate launchers to get more missiles at once.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 19, 2020, 01:50:57 PM »

Would these be a bit more like it for ASMs or should I get the speed even higher?

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 5.000 MSP  (12.5000 Tons)     Warhead: 7    Radiation Damage: 7    Manoeuvre Rating: 14
Speed: 17,280 km/s     Fuel: 1,915     Flight Time: 23 minutes     Range: 23.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 4.2625     Development Cost: 426
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 241.9%   3k km/s 80.6%   5k km/s 48.4%   10k km/s 24.2%

Materials Required
Tritanium  1.7505
Gallicite  2.512
Fuel:  1915
Posted by: Droll
« on: October 19, 2020, 01:41:50 PM »

Quote from: Llamageddon on October 19, 2020, 01:36:47 PM
I'm hoping these won't have to do too much work on the AMM front, I'm planning on fielding smaller ships which are more dedicated for AMM work, to escort my frigates and larger ships, and later add some frigates/cruisers with a PD/AMM role to join the fleets of my slower ships. These were more an emergency measure and added because the design already had a magazine to store some AMMs. Do you think it might be best to leave the AMM work to escorts, or alternatively, make sure these have better AMM capability themselves?

I think ships at this size do much better when specialize. Either drop the ASMs for more AMMs or do the opposite. Right now having only 2 missiles per salvo means that your size 5 ASMs are dead weight. Even token gauss PD will shoot those missiles down, and that doesn't even count missiles missing their target. If you don't intend for them to AMM then make them not do AMM and go full on anti-ship.

Also when designing missile MCs I would recommend thinking about size 6 missiles and smaller more as opposed to larger ones. The largest NPR missile I have seen has been size 6.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 19, 2020, 01:36:47 PM »

Thanks for the input. I totally forgot about passive sensors.

I rushed my engine tech, so I think I'm still a bit ahead of the NRPs. The fastest alien ship I have seen is 4500 km/s, so I'm hoping my speed will not be too much of a problem. I'm planning on fielding some corvettes and FACs going around 6000-8000 km/s to deal with anything too fast for my frigates.

If I dropped the range of my AS missiles to up the speed would 10m km still be fine for range? Not really sure what to aim for with speed/range for ASMs.

Quote from: TheTalkingMeowth on October 19, 2020, 11:40:04 AM
The PD fire control is short on range; your AMMs have twice the range of your fire control. They also seem a bit slow to me, but as long as they are faster than the enemy's attack missiles that isn't a huge issue. Hit chance is more important.

I don't know how likely I am to be going against size 8+ missiles but that meets the range of my AMM with the FC, so that's why it is lower for size 6 and smaller. I was trying to save on some tonnage but it might not be worth it. If I am likely to be against mostly smaller missiles then making a larger AMM FC does make sense.

Quote from: JOKER on October 19, 2020, 01:09:16 PM
4 AMM launchers and 72 AMMs are simply not enough. My dedicated AMM ships usually have 10 AMM launchers and a magazine loaded with 200 rounds  per 5kt.

I'm hoping these won't have to do too much work on the AMM front, I'm planning on fielding smaller ships which are more dedicated for AMM work, to escort my frigates and larger ships, and later add some frigates/cruisers with a PD/AMM role to join the fleets of my slower ships. These were more an emergency measure and added because the design already had a magazine to store some AMMs. Do you think it might be best to leave the AMM work to escorts, or alternatively, make sure these have better AMM capability themselves?