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: Pedroig
« on: March 05, 2023, 07:28:09 PM »

Quote from: Serina on March 05, 2023, 05:08:47 PM
Quote from: Pedroig link=topic=13191. msg164384#msg164384 date=1677944834
Couple of thoughts on a couple of different subjects in this entire thread:
1.   Missile Agility NEVER made sense, that's not how missiles work in real world physics.   AAM's and SAM's in atmo both are either direct fired "tracking" objects which have advantage of no G limits and smaller mass, but don't have any actual avoidance agility.   Physics makes making any drastic change to a course once massive acceleration has occurred in a vector very hard to overcome the inertia.

Inertia doesn't reaaally exist in Aurora 4x though.  And even in real life, there's a significant difference in Missile maneuverability and it does have an impact.  Larger fins means higher drag but also a larger ability to divert air to change the vector of travel for the missile.  TWR (before missile burnout) is important in determining whether a missile can quickly catch up to, and overpower the vector change that whatever it's tracking has while maneuvering. 

If missile agility didn't exist then the various AAMs and SAMs wouldn't have large fins for correction, they'd rely entirely on their engines or tiny fins. 

A missile has to be able to quickly shift it's inertial vector by the use of aerodynamic forces in order to be able to follow it's target, particularly if it's maneuvering, otherwise, just waggling the stick a bit would mean no missiles could ever hit you due to the inertia.

Even withut actual inertia, it would still take a phase to stop and a phase to turn around.

Missiles are NOT AGILE versus airborne or spaceborne targets, most of the "work" is done at the time of firing, and for anti-missile work, well they don't have avoidance to begin with, and for planes, well, the planes are more maneuverable than the missile.  The missiles closure rate tends to be their biggest advantage.  Very few missiles can make a 360 degree turn after the motor goes out, heck most have trouble with 90 degree turn, it is why the most common tactic for missile defense when within the No Escape Zone of a missile is to run abeam of the launch site with a heading change of at least 45 degrees from previous heading.

Now for surface targets, missiles ARE AGILE because the target is operating on a single plane and the target's velocity is a rounding error for the missile's speed and tracking ability.  It's the reason why bombs with a guidance package on it can reliably hit moving targets from 10km altitude.
Posted by: Serina
« on: March 05, 2023, 05:08:47 PM »

Quote from: Pedroig link=topic=13191. msg164384#msg164384 date=1677944834
Couple of thoughts on a couple of different subjects in this entire thread:
1.   Missile Agility NEVER made sense, that's not how missiles work in real world physics.   AAM's and SAM's in atmo both are either direct fired "tracking" objects which have advantage of no G limits and smaller mass, but don't have any actual avoidance agility.   Physics makes making any drastic change to a course once massive acceleration has occurred in a vector very hard to overcome the inertia.

Inertia doesn't reaaally exist in Aurora 4x though.  And even in real life, there's a significant difference in Missile maneuverability and it does have an impact.  Larger fins means higher drag but also a larger ability to divert air to change the vector of travel for the missile.  TWR (before missile burnout) is important in determining whether a missile can quickly catch up to, and overpower the vector change that whatever it's tracking has while maneuvering. 

If missile agility didn't exist then the various AAMs and SAMs wouldn't have large fins for correction, they'd rely entirely on their engines or tiny fins. 

A missile has to be able to quickly shift it's inertial vector by the use of aerodynamic forces in order to be able to follow it's target, particularly if it's maneuvering, otherwise, just waggling the stick a bit would mean no missiles could ever hit you due to the inertia.
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: March 04, 2023, 09:47:14 AM »

Couple of thoughts on a couple of different subjects in this entire thread:

1.  Missile Agility NEVER made sense, that's not how missiles work in real world physics.  AAM's and SAM's in atmo both are either direct fired "tracking" objects which have advantage of no G limits and smaller mass, but don't have any actual avoidance agility.  Physics makes making any drastic change to a course once massive acceleration has occurred in a vector very hard to overcome the inertia.

2.  AMM's should be "Flak" burst weapons to begin with, they shouldn't have to "hit" another missile directly, just get within 10k of it, detonate, and the shrapnel does the rest of the work.  This would make AMM's more effective baseline since a wave of AMM's versus a wave of ASM's would result in the percentage to kill any given ASM to be given to each AMM independently, in other words, salvos target salvos but the calculations to hit are done on a per AMM warhead.  So 10 AMM's versus 10 ASM's would get a total of 100 "to hit rolls".  This further makes AMM's a great AMM tool, and a poor ASM tool.

3.  To counter this, along with PD, ECM values on Missiles would work on a margin efficiency increase while ECCM would be a a direct reduction of that increase.  So a 50% margin increase would mean the salvo size would appear to be TWICE as large, in other word every AMM or PD "hit" would have a 50% chance of hitting a "ghost".  To make this "fair" and applicable to ships, the simple solution is to use the same mechanic used for engine boost, and missile ECM is twice as effective as ship ECM, but all ECCM is the same "level".  This makes the trade for warhead strength and ECM a "fair" one.  (This is basically making DECOY ECM or SENSOR GHOSTS which makes targeting the correct target harder, for AMM's it is assumed they will "spread out" to hit the entire ASM salvo.  This is a feature which can be ADDITIVE to the sensor/FC/missile JAMMING ECM, perhaps it should be a new technology of DECOY which is basically the opposite of STEALTH)

4.  Laser Warheads should be some combination of lasers and particle beams.  Hard max range of 120 km, with the range efficiency being the throughput efficiency, so start with 10k end with 120k and fractional damage would still apply.  So a Laser Warhead damage would be WH size*Laser Warhead Strength/(Distance/Laser Warhead Range) meaning the base 10k Laser Warhead range with a total Warhead Strength of 10 would do 0.833 damage at 120k km and the full 10 damage at 10k km or closer.  This is more aligned with "hard sci fi" use of laser pumped bombs on missiles, then having a "shotgun" approach to try hitting everywhere a target might be in the next 5 seconds.

5.  There should be no way of knowing what type of warhead a missile has equipped until they actually go off.  The danger of "recognizing" the difference is that it makes gaming the system MORE possible.  Just given the above suggestions are taken, if I know that laser warheads are going to be prioritized over nukes, then why wouldn't I put a single laser warhead in a salvo, let it take ALL the prioritized PD and before the next cycle goes off, the nukes have already exploded.  Just treat salvos as salvos and don't give any unrealistic "gamey" information to guide the AI decisions. 

6.  Add BFC to the options to be put on the actual missile, have it work just like the Active Sensor does now, with a realistic Laser Warhead range of sub 1 light second range, it won't need to be grandoise, and doesn't make there be confusion of needing BFC's to control a function of a missile on the launcher itself.  Which also means that Laser Warhead mines will be possible.

7.  Retargeting missed ASM's with AMM's is simply not physically possible.  Now if the pitch is to continue on and potentially target another salvo, maybe, but at a "slow" speed of 20km/s it would take two "tics" for the AMM's to get back to the location where they initially MISSED the ASM's, and then still have to be able to catch them.  And that is given a very unrealistic scenario of instant turnover and taking advantage of the flat speeds versus actual acceleration which should be used while under power.

8.  Retargetting of ASM's on ships could be doable, but then again, have to run the PD gauntlet twice.  It is an interesting idea, which in reality would never come up, because missiles would go "ballistic" well before they ever hit their targets, and in space the amount of inertia that is built up during the acceleration phase would be too great to have enough fuel remaining to be able to do a turnover and re-engage.

9.  Missile armor makes no sense, penetrating warheads do but really they are KKV's then in regards to hitting a spaceship.

10.  MFC should have a tradeoff between size, range, and number of missiles controlled.  Having one MFC for every 10 missiles seems like a good baseline, range to active sensor range for those 10 and then have it go down linearly so double ASR is one missile.  Tech upgrades to reduce size, reduce falloff effect, and/or increase base number of missiles. 
Posted by: SpaceMarine
« on: March 01, 2023, 10:39:01 PM »

Quote from: Mike Sauer on March 01, 2023, 06:23:53 PM
If its decided that missiles might have more then 1 HTK, you could judt base it on size.  1 HTK per 50 tons or fraction there of.  Size 20 missiles are 50 tons.

please make an account and get approval so we do not have to approve every post you make, much appreciated
Posted by: Mike Sauer
« on: March 01, 2023, 06:23:53 PM »

If its decided that missiles might have more then 1 HTK, you could judt base it on size.  1 HTK per 50 tons or fraction there of.  Size 20 missiles are 50 tons.
Posted by: Destragon
« on: March 01, 2023, 09:48:28 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on February 22, 2023, 11:54:36 AM
Quote from: Shuul on February 20, 2023, 05:29:22 AM
I would love to see return of missile armor, something that can take more space and allow missile to survive at least 1-2 hits from gauss

Missile armour would have to match the mechanics of ships to avoid breaking the physics. Lets run an example using laminate composite armour, which is 5th generation tech.

If we create a tiny ship to approximate a missile, using only a fighter crew quarters, we need 0.174 units of laminate composite, which is 0.0145 HS, or 0.725 tons. The 'ship' is 2.725 tons in total. 1 MSP is 2.5 tons, so that is a missile of size 1.09 MSP, that requires 0.29 MSP of space (27%) dedicated to armour in order to create a missile with 1 armour. For that size of missile, it would likely end up with no warhead.

If I add a small maintenance storage to our 'ship', that changes to 14.175 tons, or 5.67 MSP. For 1 armour, 2.175 tons of laminate is required, or 0.87 MSP (15%). The missile design could alternatively include ECM, ECCM and onboard sensors for a total of 0.75 MSP and still have space left over for additional fuel or engine, etc.  For earlier armour, the situation is much worse.

Even if that was considered acceptable, we are still using the same mechanics as ships, so we also have to consider shock damage. As the missile is likely less than 1 HS and the damage would be at least 1, a shock damage check would be automatic. For each point of incoming damage, there would be a cumulative 20% chance of destroying the missile regardless of armour.

This would also either add missile damage tracking to Aurora, or some form of HTK check where a missile with 2 HTK (1 armour) would have a 50% chance of being destroyed. I would also probably have to implement some form of missile recognition to add to tactical intelligence so that the AI could prioritize inbounds that it was most likely to destroy (because if I was the defender I would want that option).

In summary, the implementation of consistent mechanics across all sizes of ships and missiles means that missile armour is not that effective in terms of mass, especially at lower tech (which is why I removed it), and would result in other mechanics being added.

I will focus instead on other options to make missiles more survivable.
While armor might be ineffective on smaller missiles, could it maybe be more effective on missiles with comically large warheads, one powerful enough to destroy a larger ship in one hit?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: March 01, 2023, 07:15:19 AM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on February 28, 2023, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: Serina on February 28, 2023, 06:05:12 AM
Quote from: TheTalkingMeowth link=topic=13191. msg164251#msg164251 date=1677555275
Quote from: nuclearslurpee link=topic=13191. msg164247#msg164247 date=1677551622
-Snip

Back of the envelope calcs suggest size 2 AMMs with retargeting are going to be really cost effective, possibly in exchange for reduced density of missiles killed/launcher tonnage.

For ASMs I think PD means retargeting is useless. 

It's a recurring issue that missiles are a more difficult target than ships are, so accuracy related investments are more useful for AMMs than they are for ASMs.

Given the inclusion of Laser warheads and the refactoring of how PD works, I don't agree.

Ooh, good catch! Retargeting laser warheads are a cool idea...

I guess that Laser PD will become quite more important than it was before... now you will need a true layered beam PD in order to beat enemy incoming missile salvoes. Even combining laser warhead with smaller direct attack missiles can become quite troublesome to deal with.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: February 28, 2023, 07:21:42 PM »

Quote from: Serina on February 28, 2023, 06:05:12 AM
Quote from: TheTalkingMeowth link=topic=13191. msg164251#msg164251 date=1677555275
Quote from: nuclearslurpee link=topic=13191. msg164247#msg164247 date=1677551622
-Snip

Back of the envelope calcs suggest size 2 AMMs with retargeting are going to be really cost effective, possibly in exchange for reduced density of missiles killed/launcher tonnage.

For ASMs I think PD means retargeting is useless. 

It's a recurring issue that missiles are a more difficult target than ships are, so accuracy related investments are more useful for AMMs than they are for ASMs.

Given the inclusion of Laser warheads and the refactoring of how PD works, I don't agree.

Ooh, good catch! Retargeting laser warheads are a cool idea...
Posted by: Serina
« on: February 28, 2023, 06:05:12 AM »

Quote from: TheTalkingMeowth link=topic=13191. msg164251#msg164251 date=1677555275
Quote from: nuclearslurpee link=topic=13191. msg164247#msg164247 date=1677551622
-Snip

Back of the envelope calcs suggest size 2 AMMs with retargeting are going to be really cost effective, possibly in exchange for reduced density of missiles killed/launcher tonnage.

For ASMs I think PD means retargeting is useless. 

It's a recurring issue that missiles are a more difficult target than ships are, so accuracy related investments are more useful for AMMs than they are for ASMs.

Given the inclusion of Laser warheads and the refactoring of how PD works, I don't agree. 
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: February 28, 2023, 04:28:23 AM »

Quote from: TheTalkingMeowth on February 27, 2023, 09:34:35 PM
Quote from: nuclearslurpee on February 27, 2023, 08:33:42 PM
I am actually thinking about larger than size-1 AMMs with the retargeting module, because if you can make the first interception attempt far enough out, you get several chances to hit and that could make up for being e.g. size 2 instead of size 1.

For ASMs I think it is probably more useful than it feels because we have to remember that Agility has been removed, so even-tech ASMs will probably be maxing out at around 70% chance to hit, or so. The catch of course is that PD might make it a moot point.

Back of the envelope calcs suggest size 2 AMMs with retargeting are going to be really cost effective, possibly in exchange for reduced density of missiles killed/launcher tonnage.

For ASMs I think PD means retargeting is useless.

It's a recurring issue that missiles are a more difficult target than ships are, so accuracy related investments are more useful for AMMs than they are for ASMs.

Retargeting will also be quite useful against FAC and fighters as they usually have poor PD abilities. Or with the use of any fast reloading launchers able to fire every 5-15 seconds perhaps, so smaller missiles maybe 3-5 in size.

I agree that when it comes to box launched or reduced launcher launched missiles the retargeting will not be very useful, you rather use the half as large extra to hit module, especially in larger missiles. Beam PD will just be destroying anything that miss in this instance so there is not much point investing in them for these types of missiles.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: February 27, 2023, 09:34:35 PM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on February 27, 2023, 08:33:42 PM
I am actually thinking about larger than size-1 AMMs with the retargeting module, because if you can make the first interception attempt far enough out, you get several chances to hit and that could make up for being e.g. size 2 instead of size 1.

For ASMs I think it is probably more useful than it feels because we have to remember that Agility has been removed, so even-tech ASMs will probably be maxing out at around 70% chance to hit, or so. The catch of course is that PD might make it a moot point.

Back of the envelope calcs suggest size 2 AMMs with retargeting are going to be really cost effective, possibly in exchange for reduced density of missiles killed/launcher tonnage.

For ASMs I think PD means retargeting is useless.

It's a recurring issue that missiles are a more difficult target than ships are, so accuracy related investments are more useful for AMMs than they are for ASMs.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: February 27, 2023, 08:33:42 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on February 27, 2023, 10:12:42 AM
The module that enables you to retarget seem interesting to me and I don't thin you will be able to really abuse it. If you put it in an AMM it will increase the size considerably (especially if you want a really fast AMM and ECCM as well), in anti ship work it will be susceptible to multiple turns of beam PD when it misses.

To be honest I'm not really sure when you want to use it... perhaps if you can launch ASM at extreme range outside enemy normal PD on really larger missiles. On AMM you still need to make sure the missile is at least as fast as the ASM they want intercept otherwise the ASM will just move away from it once it misses. It can also possibly be used if you have a really fast reloading launcher so the missiles is not overwhelmed by PD once the miss the ship they are targeted in more missiles come in every 10-15 second or so... It can also be very effective against fighters and FAC that tend to have limited PD capabilities.

I am actually thinking about larger than size-1 AMMs with the retargeting module, because if you can make the first interception attempt far enough out, you get several chances to hit and that could make up for being e.g. size 2 instead of size 1.

For ASMs I think it is probably more useful than it feels because we have to remember that Agility has been removed, so even-tech ASMs will probably be maxing out at around 70% chance to hit, or so. The catch of course is that PD might make it a moot point.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: February 27, 2023, 10:12:42 AM »

The module that enables you to retarget seem interesting to me and I don't thin you will be able to really abuse it. If you put it in an AMM it will increase the size considerably (especially if you want a really fast AMM and ECCM as well), in anti ship work it will be susceptible to multiple turns of beam PD when it misses.

To be honest I'm not really sure when you want to use it... perhaps if you can launch ASM at extreme range outside enemy normal PD on really larger missiles. On AMM you still need to make sure the missile is at least as fast as the ASM they want intercept otherwise the ASM will just move away from it once it misses. It can also possibly be used if you have a really fast reloading launcher so the missiles is not overwhelmed by PD once the miss the ship they are targeted in more missiles come in every 10-15 second or so... It can also be very effective against fighters and FAC that tend to have limited PD capabilities.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: February 27, 2023, 10:04:51 AM »

Quote from: Mike Sauer on February 26, 2023, 10:37:14 PM
OK so if the base is a shaped charge, then the AMM WH is some type of proximity spherical explosion.  Enough to hurt a missile an a higher probability of hit, but too unfocused to damage a ship.

No... their charge is not strong enough to damage the armour of a ship if it does not do at least one point if damage. That is why Steve added fractional strength missiles as they can destroy missiles but can never really damage ships or large space structures, their yield is just to small.

All missiles likely use a shaped charge explosion no matter is used in anti missile work or anti ship work.
Posted by: Demetrious
« on: February 27, 2023, 05:32:44 AM »

Quote from: TheTalkingMeowth on February 25, 2023, 01:00:19 AM
In a similar vein, we could apply the "AMMs per missile" setting to energy PD.

I.e. right now energy PD is applied as efficiently as possible, shooting at a missile until it is destroyed then moving to the next. More "realistic," at least for final fire, is that you would precommit how many shots to take at each missile. For bonus points, in final defensive fire mode we should "know" what ship is targeted by a missile and allow the shots per missile setting to be based on which vessel is targeted.

Quite brilliant. The latest devlog update for Nebulous improved point-defense AI by allowing guns to switch targets once sufficient shots were already en-route towards an incoming vampire, increasing the number they could engage - i.e. even in simplistic simulations, you get the same "flight time" considerations that real-life point defense has to deal with. Moreover, by incorporating Jorgen_CAB's suggestion to let CIWS have one final whack at incoming missiles, "normal" energy-based PD firing in final defensive fire mode is clarified to be firing at some distance - because actual real-life CIWS can engage one missile at a time as they're firing at such short range there's no time to mail shells towards target A and then reorient to target B. Ergo, to use the analogy of wet navy warships: "Area defense" is 5 inch dual-angle guns engaging at significant range, "final defensive fire" is down in the 40mm Bofors range bracket, and CIWS is the 20mm cannon/Phalanx CIWS last-ditch engagement.

This change accomplishes a few things: it incorporates realistic complexities of point-defense into the game with very simple and straightforward mechanics, widens the design space, and even gives the player more tactical choices to make in combat. It also gives CIWS more utility (further expanding the design space) as right now it's a very niche tool for protecting the odd commercial hull that might see combat with a fleet (tenders, supply ships etc.) or is utilized in very niche scenarios for its unique capability of being able to fire even when under jump shock (very useful for commercial hull jump tenders used for conducting warp point assaults.) It fits the nature of the weapon perfectly and expands the number of scenarios in which it's useful, further expanding the design space.