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: martinuzz
« on: August 25, 2010, 09:53:33 AM »

Looking at my missile control design again, I am starting to doubt that it has too much range.
Even though it says range 14.1m km in the PDC's blueprint, if you look at the design screen for the fire control:
Code: [Select]
Active Sensor Strength: 33.6   Sensitivity Modifier: 140%
Sensor Size: 1.2 HS    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 1    Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 14,100,000 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 1,535,490 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 2,256,000 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 5,076,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 34    Crew: 6
The 14.1m km is against targets of 50 tones (or larger)
against missiles, what the thing is intended for, it's ranges are shorter, with size 6 missiles being at about the lock-on range that is equal to my missile's range.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 24, 2010, 03:05:41 PM »

Quote from: "Brian"
Quote from: "martinuzz"
Thanks for the tips!
About getting a slightly bigger missile fire control.. You're right.. My present missile control has slightly less range than my missiles.
I'm trying to design matching sets of missiles and fire-controls though, where the missile range is about the same as the fire control range.
I name my missile series after the missile control that's going to use them.

It is of no use whatsoever, to have a fire control that has more range than the missile, right? (Except for upward compatibility with future missile designs)
Actually having your fire control outrange your missiles is important.  Enemy ECM reduces the range of missile fire control.  If they have ECM-3, then your fighters are going to be getting a 30% reduction in their range, ie 10m km would be down to 7m km.  That can make a big difference on how close you actually need to be to fire in the first place.

Brian

Very true, but a 10% missile range vs. MFC range is a bit on the shaky side. It all comes down to personal preference :)
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: August 24, 2010, 02:11:18 PM »

Quote from: "martinuzz"
Thanks for the tips!
About getting a slightly bigger missile fire control.. You're right.. My present missile control has slightly less range than my missiles.
I'm trying to design matching sets of missiles and fire-controls though, where the missile range is about the same as the fire control range.
I name my missile series after the missile control that's going to use them.

It is of no use whatsoever, to have a fire control that has more range than the missile, right? (Except for upward compatibility with future missile designs)
Actually having your fire control outrange your missiles is important.  Enemy ECM reduces the range of missile fire control.  If they have ECM-3, then your fighters are going to be getting a 30% reduction in their range, ie 10m km would be down to 7m km.  That can make a big difference on how close you actually need to be to fire in the first place.

Brian
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 24, 2010, 11:29:51 AM »

Quote from: "martinuzz"
Hmm, interesting.

Could the same layered approach then not also be achieved by only missile launchers?
Use 1 type of Anti-missile fire control that has 5-6m km range, but use different range settings in the combat menu?

For instance, a simplified example:

You have a PDC with 3 missile controls, that have a max range of 5-6m km, and a resolution 1..
It has 3 (size 1) missile launchers, each linked to one of the fire controls.

Now, in the combat settings, you set the "Max PD range in 10k units" to 600 for one launcher, 200 for the next, and 50 for the last.

You could  use three types of missiles for them, trading fuel for agility at each layer.
I guess that would be have economic benefits as well, as there is less chance of wasting missiles on overkill shots (if you calculate things right, and make sure that each layer's salvo will intercept incoming missiles before they reach the next layer's range.

A bigger economic benefit would be, that you do not need to put effort into researching beam stuff, and concentrate on getting *really* good missile power.

You could. This would be best for a PDC rather than mobile units. Just remember... Missile launchers require ammo. Beams do not (other than power plants).
Posted by: martinuzz
« on: August 24, 2010, 11:23:38 AM »

Hmm, interesting.

Could the same layered approach then not also be achieved by only missile launchers?
Use 1 type of Anti-missile fire control that has 5-6m km range, but use different range settings in the combat menu?

For instance, a simplified example:

You have a PDC with 3 missile controls, that have a max range of 5-6m km, and a resolution 1..
It has 3 (size 1) missile launchers, each linked to one of the fire controls.

Now, in the combat settings, you set the "Max PD range in 10k units" to 600 for one launcher, 200 for the next, and 50 for the last.

You could  use three types of missiles for them, trading fuel for agility at each layer.
I guess that would be have economic benefits as well, as there is less chance of wasting missiles on overkill shots (if you calculate things right, and make sure that each layer's salvo will intercept incoming missiles before they reach the next layer's range.

A bigger economic benefit would be, that you do not need to put effort into researching beam stuff, and concentrate on getting *really* good missile power.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 24, 2010, 10:52:12 AM »

Quote from: "martinuzz"
Heh, you're right, I messed up there.
For now, until I design new missiles, I can set the maximum range for the fire control's autofire in the combat screen, so I can prevent it from firing missiles that cannot reach their targets?

Should be able to.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 24, 2010, 10:51:52 AM »

Quote from: "Erik Luken"
About your AMM.

This is all personal preference, but your MFC has a range of 14m km. Your missiles have a range of 1.6m km. Under automated control, your ships will fire AMM at salvos long before they reach effective range of the AMM. You might consider bringing the two closer in line for ranges.

I know. I could have edited.

There was a discussion a while back on effective point defense plans. The consensus if I recall, was a layered approach; AMM out to around 5-6m km, beam in the 50k-75k range, gauss in the 20-25k range and CIWS as last ditch. Appropriately designed, your escorts can have multiple shots at a salvo, AMM, beam, gauss. Especially since the AI seems to prioritize targets based on size.
Posted by: martinuzz
« on: August 24, 2010, 10:44:56 AM »

Heh, you're right, I messed up there.
For now, until I design new missiles, I can set the maximum range for the fire control's autofire in the combat screen, so I can prevent it from firing missiles that cannot reach their targets?
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 24, 2010, 10:28:15 AM »

About your AMM.

This is all personal preference, but your MFC has a range of 14m km. Your missiles have a range of 1.6m km. Under automated control, your ships will fire AMM at salvos long before they reach effective range of the AMM. You might consider bringing the two closer in line for ranges.
Posted by: martinuzz
« on: August 24, 2010, 10:21:29 AM »

Thanks for the tips!
About getting a slightly bigger missile fire control.. You're right.. My present missile control has slightly less range than my missiles.
I'm trying to design matching sets of missiles and fire-controls though, where the missile range is about the same as the fire control range.
I name my missile series after the missile control that's going to use them.

It is of no use whatsoever, to have a fire control that has more range than the missile, right? (Except for upward compatibility with future missile designs)
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: August 24, 2010, 09:57:15 AM »

A different comment on design strategy for pdc's. I find that having some small pdc's to prefab and move to colony worlds helps a lot on defending them.  The computer will often send out raiding squadrons of just a few ships to attack systems with colonies in them.  If the colony has even a couple of small pdc's with point defense missiles then the amount of damage that the raiders do is very limited.  Typically I try to make them no more than 2 sections large (100 hs).  This is enough for 10 size 1 launchers and quite a magazine space.  Combine this with a similiar size pdc with a couple of hanger bays to bay fighters on and you have a credible defense for your planet.  I also like to put a couple of pdc's with mesons to act as last ditch point defense, and to shoot up any troop transports once Steve programs them into the npr behavior.  While this sounds like a lot of fire power for a colony it is a total of about 600 hull spaces of pdc's.  A couple of divisions of engineers can assemble them in a year or two.  Just have them prefab'd and waiting to send out to a colony that might need the protection.  Before that just put one of the amm bases to stop a light missile bombardment.

For more serious defences I will have a couple of really big pdc's with LOTS of armour and some really big active sensors.  These are the bases that are going to be shot at a lot as the computer can see them from very far away because of the big sensors.  Then the rest of your pdc's do not need to be as heavily armoured (10-20 points is enough for them)  Have a bunch of pdc's with point defense mesons and amm, and make them seperate from the offensive missile launchers.  This way they do not need to be easy targets untill they have a target to fire on.  Then have some hanger bay on all of the pdc's for basing fighters/boarding craft.  I recently captured a couple of npr ships that were considerably higher tech than I was by having several battalions of marines ready and did a boarding attack on the attacking ships.  It really helped my tech reasearch out to have all of this high tech to work with.

Brian
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: August 24, 2010, 09:41:48 AM »

The only thing that really jumps out at me is that the maintenance for the fighters is very high, as in to many spares.  Are you using a full hull size for this?  If you are then you need to reasearch the smaller size's and put the smallest (.1hs) on the fighter.  Fighters don't require having maintenance, but I like to put a small amount on as it gives them a very much increased lifespan on patrol or long range strikes.

The second thing that is not a big problem is that the missile range seems a little bit low.  If you are playing with version 5.2 you will find that the ships you are attacking are probably going to spot and open fire on the fighters before they can shoot at their targets.  I do like the big warhead on the missiles though so it is definitly a trade off.  You might want to see what you can get with reducing the warhead to 4 points of damage and upping the speed/fuel.  Then take some of that saved space from the spare parts for a little bigger missile fire control.

Brian
Posted by: martinuzz
« on: August 24, 2010, 08:16:36 AM »

I designed a new base, to hold my Home Guard Division, and provide defense.
Code: [Select]
Home Guard Base MkI class Planetary Defence Centre    74,900 tons     885 Crew     4298.1 BP      TCS 1498  TH 0  EM 0
Armour 17-158     Sensors 1/112     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 40
Hangar Deck Capacity 2000 tons     Troop Capacity: 21 Battalions    Magazine 2416    

PDC Size 1 Missile Launcher (40)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 5
AMM FC14-R1 "Patriot" (10)     Range 14.1m km    Resolution 1
Patriot S1 (2400)  Speed: 41,400 km/s   End: 0.7m    Range: 1.8m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 386 / 231 / 115

Missile Sensor MR15-R1 (1)     GPS 112     Range 15.7m km    Resolution 1
Ship Detection Sensor MR110-R50 (1)     GPS 5600     Range 110.9m km    Resolution 50

Strike Group
6x Scrambler MkI Strikefighter   Speed: 8346 km/s    Size: 6.35

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s


This design is classed as a Planetary Defence Centre and can be pre-fabricated in 30 sections

It shoots these AMM:
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 28
Speed: 41400 km/s    Endurance: 1 minutes   Range: 1.8m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.3907
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1159.2%   3k km/s 364%   5k km/s 231.8%   10k km/s 115.9%
And holds a squadron of six of these anti-ship fighters:
Code: [Select]
Scrambler MkI class Strikefighter    318 tons     4 Crew     67 BP      TCS 6.35  TH 53  EM 0
8346 km/s     Armour 3-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 3%    IFR: 0%    Maint Capacity 33 MSP    Max Repair 14 MSP    Est Time: 11.59 Years
Magazine 20    

Fighter Engine MkI (1)    Power 52.8    Fuel Use 6000%    Signature 52.8    Armour 0    Exp 50%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 0.9 billion km   (31 hours at full power)

Size 5 Box Launcher (4)    Missile Size 5    Hangar Reload 37.5 minutes    MF Reload 6.2 hours
ASM FC11-R100 "Stinger" (1)     Range 11.8m km    Resolution 100
Stinger S5 (4)  Speed: 25,600 km/s   End: 8m    Range: 12.2m km   WH: 9    Size: 5    TH: 239 / 143 / 71

Small Ship Sensor MR17-R80 (1)     GPS 1120     Range 17.5m km    Resolution 80

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/sArmed with:
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 5 MSP  (0.25 HS)     Warhead: 9    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 28
Speed: 25600 km/s    Endurance: 8 minutes   Range: 12.2m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.0275    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  27,500 km
Cost Per Missile: 4.8608
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 716.8%   3k km/s 224%   5k km/s 143.4%   10k km/s 71.7%
I'm thinking about copying this design, and removing the PDC barracks, and build a dozen of them.
But before I do, I'd like to know if I did it (somewhat) right, this time.
Posted by: iamlenb
« on: August 22, 2010, 11:11:41 PM »

Quote from: "martinuzz"
AMM Flak MkII incorporates your tips. More speed, a little bit more agility.

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 21
Speed: 33500 km/s    Endurance: 8 minutes   Range: 16.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.083
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 703.5%   3k km/s 231%   5k km/s 140.7%   10k km/s 70.3%

I'd reduce the endurance significantly.  Maybe to 1m km range.  Dump the rest in speed/agility to optimize your to hit chance.  70.3% against 10km/s is pretty low in my book, as I've rarely seen missiles slower than 20km/s to 30km/s, which drastically reduces your hit percentages.  I'd prefer to have less range, with one or two launches, and much higher hit rate.

If you didn't know, this line:
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 703.5%   3k km/s 231%   5k km/s 140.7%   10k km/s 70.3%
gives you your hit percentages against the target speed.  Target speed can be changed with the select boxes to the right of the display and the main text will update your percentages accordingly.

If I've got anything wrong, Aurora vets, please jump in to correct me.

Regards,
Len
Posted by: martinuzz
« on: August 22, 2010, 04:20:22 AM »

AMM Flak MkII incorporates your tips. More speed, a little bit more agility.

Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 21
Speed: 33500 km/s    Endurance: 8 minutes   Range: 16.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.083
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 703.5%   3k km/s 231%   5k km/s 140.7%   10k km/s 70.3%