Interestingly way back during the first versions of aurora missiles had ranges similar to energy weapons, at least from what I've read of Steve's campaigns. In fact in the patch to 2.6 steve mentions an increase in range of a factor of 100. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=1017.0
This is interesting... Granted, missiles
should be capable of ranges significantly further than beams or projectiles. But, perhaps, at that time Steve shifted the balance of missiles a bit too far?
While obviously missiles with ranges under a million kilometers is severely deficient, does anyone else think that fuel consumption might possibly be too low? I'm wondering if theres a balance to be found, if at a certain tech level a missile can easily reach a range where it matches a fire control or active sensor which was extremely expensive to research and is very heavy, shouldn't the fuel required also be significant?
I also felt that way. To pack all that fuel, engine, guidance, sensors, and warhead into such a small package is quite a feat, esp. at the ranges and speeds we see.
Realistically kinetic missiles will probably be the weapons most used in space because they will do a lot of damage, in fact more damage than equivalent explosives would do...
We can't have kinetic missiles in Aurora. This was suggested in the
AMM doesn't need warhead topic, but shot down for several reasons:
The other reason for warhead requirements is that the original idea was that rather than make a direct kinetic hit (hard) it was far easier to fry the electronics (targetting computers and sensors) of an ASM by detonating a nuke close by. So, its not really necessarily a direct hit, but a proximity kill rendering the ASM inert, blind, or scrambled. Or it could be close enough to vaporize the missile.
Another words, AMMs may
need a warhead because they don't have to actually impact the missile to disable it. Anyway, even if kinetic missiles are arguably effective with today's technology, that may change as technology changes.
[snip]...and with guidance and propulsion they can mitigate the problem of having tiny angular issues.
I would disagree. Conventional missiles flying at
supersonic speeds is one thing. But trying to precisely aim a missile at speeds approaching
relativistic to hit a target in the vastness of space is probably more complicated, esp. when fired in large volleys and when massive amounts of AMMs and point defense is involved. (No GPS to navigate by, for one thing.)
Now in Aurora the missiles have the range they do because their engines use the exact same formula, at least as far as I am aware, as every other engine in the game. I don't think that needs to be change...
Missiles are much smaller in scale than a starship. It could be argued that starships should get a size bonus for efficiency or something along those lines.
Realistically, how much fuel can you compact into a missile's frame? How much can you shrink a rocket engine or power plant before you loose efficiency or run into issues?
Aurora already relies on fictional Trans-Newtonian elements and a bit of hand waving to explain certain things. Yes, it is very impressive how detailed and how realistic Aurora tries to be. It's very good at that. But it's not as hard core as one of NASA's space simulators.
Anyway, as with games in general and many other forms of media, there comes a point where you have to balance realism with the entertainment value. I think where one draws the line is a matter of preference and opinion.
Missiles are better than lasers which holds true in the current world and should hold true in the future with space.
Actually, I agree. I was
not trying to suggest that beams should be given equivalent or greater range than missiles. Nor do I want to see beams replace missiles. I simply want to give more strategic reasons to use beams - in particular, Spinal Mount. I want more
options - to see them used a bit more often, but not at the exclusion of missiles.