Post reply

Topic Summary

Posted by: Steve Walmsley

« on: April 20, 2008, 10:23:27 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "Brian"

How about a small specialized warhead for targetting other missiles. A reasearch cost of 5-10000 rp and the effect of getting a minimum size warhead doing less than 1 point of damage (ie gauss weapons) The benifit being a flat 5-10% improvement on the final chance to intercept another missile

In v3.0, warhead strengths are doubled and you can design missiles based on 1/4 MSP increments, which makes building small anti-missiles a lot easier. To get the increased chance to hit, add some MSP devoted to agility or extra speed.

Steve

Posted by: Brian Neumann

« on: April 11, 2008, 07:03:45 PM »

Insert Quote

How about a small specialized warhead for targetting other missiles. A reasearch cost of 5-10000 rp and the effect of getting a minimum size warhead doing less than 1 point of damage (ie gauss weapons) The benifit being a flat 5-10% improvement on the final chance to intercept another missile

Brian

Posted by: Steve Walmsley

« on: March 21, 2008, 06:06:48 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "Arwyn"

From what I am seeing so far, the missile ships are definitely going to have to rely on saturation to overwhelm missile defenses to get EFFECTIVE damage potential.

I agree. Because of much increased missile sizes and the existing shield recharge rates, missile ships will need land a solid, concentrated blow on their targets or they are going to be in trouble.

Quote

Yes, the new missiles definately hurt like hell when they land, and against ships with poor close defense and tracking, they are definitely going to get put into the hurt locker fast by a heavy missile boat.

But, the size and storage really is going to make effective missile ships size up from what we have right now. Standard launchers just dont cut it for saturation, which means you need a big ship to pack enough launchers to get effective odds on a target.

If your birds are pulling 75% as their best hit ratios at optimal range, your losing a quarter of your birds up front, before they even get into the engagement envelope. For the average standard launcher ship, that means you need a fair number of launchers for a decent throw weight of missiles. Under the new rules, that means a bigger ship, and that means expensive.

True, and also logistiically challenging. For any type of long-term deployment, some type of ammunition ships are likely to be needed as a part of a fleet train. With the larger missiles and the increase in fuel consumption rates in v2.6, I think we might start to see replenishment ships accompanying Aurora task forces

Quote

Just eyeballing the odds, a laser armed ship with a very good medium to short range high speed tracking system is going to do a pretty good job in inbound birds, unless they are in sufficient numbers to swamp the systems. Which means your back to packing in enough launchers to be effective. Box launchers certainly fit the bill, but they are a *poof* and gone solution. Yes, your first salvo WILL saturate and get through, but you dont have any staying power for longer duration engagements.

A dedicated Aegis style anti-missile/fighter ship is going to absolutely slaughter missiles, especially with the detection range being much further out. Particularly with railguns, but thats all its going to be good for.

This type of Aegis ship is going to be very useful for any major navies in an Aurora campaign.

Quote

HOWEVER, EM targeting has the potential to promote a lot of box launcher driven "sky barfing" of EM seeking missiles. Very very easy to saturate defenses that way. I need to poke around with it and see when the new version is out.

You could always turn off active sensors and shields

. It will be interesting to see how EM-seeking and heat-seeking missiles work out

Steve

Posted by: Steve Walmsley

« on: March 21, 2008, 06:00:13 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "srubin6759"

So the question comes down to play style and what you want in a game. As mentioned earlier, Aurora is defined by its tech ladder. If you want to produce game-based fiction, that's great. SS and AVT are designed to accurately model Ken's beliefs in space combat. If you don't mind NOT having great control on your designs, AVT and SS are superior products.

I haven't played AVT yet although its on my list as I have heard very good reports. Aurora isn't designed to be that type of game though. Its a strategic level space game with a movement and combat system that is based a lot more on wet-navy combat rather than newtonian space combat and uses the trans-newtonian technobabble to explain that. Aurora is intended to be a fun, in-depth game that has internal consistency and provides good material for fiction. It isn't designed to be a hard sci-fi tactical space combat game. As you say, it depends on what type of game you want to play.

Steve

Posted by: Doug Olchefske

« on: March 19, 2008, 10:41:01 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "srubin6759"

(lurker mode off)
On sfconsim-l, this is known as the "red-green" debate, after a B5 episode. The advertising equivalent is "tastes great, less filling." AFAIK, there is no definitive answer, it goes by designer. (lurker mode on)

Purple!

Posted by: srubin6759

« on: March 17, 2008, 05:09:30 PM »

Insert Quote

(lurker mode off)
On sfconsim-l, this is known as the "red-green" debate, after a B5 episode. The advertising equivalent is "tastes great, less filling." AFAIK, there is no definitive answer, it goes by designer. Adastra Games (AVT) seems to think that missiles should be used to "confine movement", i.e. each missile will force a ship to dodge or take atrocious damage. This will destroy a targeting solution for beams. Ken's Squadron Strike (in play-test) has a similar answer. Missiles are perfect for wearing down shields, but armor is aggregated and thus harder to pierce.

Both of these games use Newtonian or semi-Newtonian movement. Ships can get up to speed so that a meeting engagement at high velocity forces one to commit early to tactics. This is known as a "drive-by." As you accelerate, you trade maneuverability for velocity. The amount of possible dodging is proportional to your velocity and acceleration. Note that in AVT and Squadron Strike, speed creates kinetic energy ,so that damage from a warhead is proportional to its impact velocity

Aurora does not have this, as velocity is fixed by the tech - essentially set a zero. Missiles, to me, therefore has advantage in matching speeds to a target. (YMMV) Whether this overwhelms defense depends are targeting solutions, essentially controlled by non-combat (things other than raw attack and defense strength) factors, i.e. ecm and eccm. Ken seems to think targeting is unimportant in space, as engine heat gives off a trail visible in tens of AU. This is hand-waved away in Aurora.

So the question comes down to play style and what you want in a game. As mentioned earlier, Aurora is defined by its tech ladder. If you want to produce game-based fiction, that's great. SS and AVT are designed to accurately model Ken's beliefs in space combat. If you don't mind NOT having great control on your designs, AVT and SS are superior products.

(lurker mode on)

Posted by: Arwyn

« on: March 14, 2008, 12:13:28 AM »

Insert Quote

From what I am seeing so far, the missile ships are definitely going to have to rely on saturation to overwhelm missile defenses to get EFFECTIVE damage potential.

Yes, the new missiles definately hurt like hell when they land, and against ships with poor close defense and tracking, they are definitely going to get put into the hurt locker fast by a heavy missile boat.

But, the size and storage really is going to make effective missile ships size up from what we have right now. Standard launchers just dont cut it for saturation, which means you need a big ship to pack enough launchers to get effective odds on a target.

If your birds are pulling 75% as their best hit ratios at optimal range, your losing a quarter of your birds up front, before they even get into the engagement envelope. For the average standard launcher ship, that means you need a fair number of launchers for a decent throw weight of missiles. Under the new rules, that means a bigger ship, and that means expensive.

Just eyeballing the odds, a laser armed ship with a very good medium to short range high speed tracking system is going to do a pretty good job in inbound birds, unless they are in sufficient numbers to swamp the systems. Which means your back to packing in enough launchers to be effective. Box launchers certainly fit the bill, but they are a *poof* and gone solution. Yes, your first salvo WILL saturate and get through, but you dont have any staying power for longer duration engagements.

A dedicated Aegis style anti-missile/fighter ship is going to absolutely slaughter missiles, especially with the detection range being much further out. Particularly with railguns, but thats all its going to be good for.

HOWEVER, EM targeting has the potential to promote a lot of box launcher driven "sky barfing" of EM seeking missiles. Very very easy to saturate defenses that way. I need to poke around with it and see when the new version is out.

Posted by: Steve Walmsley

« on: March 12, 2008, 08:41:30 AM »

Insert Quote

I have added the option of thermal and EM seeker heads for missiles. You can now build missiles that will home on thermal output from engines or on the emissions from active sensors or shields. The strength of the thermal or EM sensor in the missile is based on:

Current racial thermal (or EM) sensor strength / 20 (because 1 MSP is 1/20th HS) x MSP devoted to the sensor.

For example, if a race has thermal sensor strength 14 then each MSP dedicated to thermal sensors is equal to 14/20 = 0.7 thermal strength. If a missile designed by that race had just 0.5 MSP for thermal sensors, the thermal sensor strength would be 0.35 (0.7 x 0.5). That would allow the detection of a strength 1000 contact at 350,000 km or a strength 200 contact at 70,000 km. Not enough for homing from great distance, but more than enough if you can direct the missile to the general area using missile fire control.

Unlike active-guided missiles (using onboard or shipboard control), the thermal and EM guidance are not restricted by resolution vs target size and will home on any target they can detect.

Steve

Posted by: Steve Walmsley

« on: March 10, 2008, 09:54:32 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "MWadwell"

But I think that you'll agree that the situation with the Frunze is probably unusual - as a easy counter to the Frunze moving back and forth is to destroy/damage the jump gate (which in this instance isn't likely due to the value of the jump gate. However, if jump gate knowledge/construction ability was widespread, damaging/destroying the jump gate would be a viable tactic).

Its unusual in the sense that there is a jump gate in this particular case but obviously any jump ship or fleet with jump ships will be in the same situation and effectively immune to missiles.

Quote

But my original point is that rather than each weapon system being "equal", I believe that missiles may be too good in open space - as you yourself state:

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
So I think your point that all races will need some missile capability is probably true

My concern is that one of the problems in Starfire was that there were certain "uber-weapons" (i.e. CM) that you had to have - and that with the current rules, missiles fall into that category....

You are taking the quote out of context. They plainly aren't an uber weapon because if missile ships they run into an enemy with strong missile defence, they could be severely screwed and they can't handle ships with a jump gate at their back. I do think they should be part of a mixed fleet though. That is the point I was making when I made the above statement.

Quote

I'll wait until you release v2.6 to see how the weapon balance has been affected before saying any more (so that I don't flog the dead horse any more that I currently have.

That's probably a good idea. Until you get chance to play around with it, it will be difficult to judge. I can say that my current campaign, using these rules, is definitely the most fun I have had so far though, although part of that is because of the updated sensor/scanning rules.

Steve

Posted by: MWadwell

« on: March 10, 2008, 09:38:55 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"

Quote from: "MWadwell"
And my point still stands - that missiles are THE dominant weapon today. With the Aurora missiles being similar to missiles today, it means that it is likely that missiles will also be the dominant weapon in Aurora.....
They will be useful but they won't be dominant. Take this paragraph from my current campaign for example...

"Commander Preston on the Iroquois was faced with a dilemma. As far as Military Intelligence knew, the Kirov class battlecruiser he faced was armed with 15cm lasers and had no missiles, giving the Iroquois a huge range advantage although the Frunze could maintain fire indefinitely while his own ship had sixty missiles. Those missiles were probably enough to handle the Frunze if he could hit with perhaps least half of them. However, with the Frunze sat right on the alien jump gate, if it detected his missiles it could simply transit the jump point and his missiles would lose lock. Ironically, the only way to close in and destroy the battlecruiser would be with beam weapons. He was effectively helpless while the Frunze could move between systems scanning for the Oceanian survey ships."

But I think that you'll agree that the situation with the Frunze is probably unusual - as a easy counter to the Frunze moving back and forth is to destroy/damage the jump gate (which in this instance isn't likely due to the value of the jump gate. However, if jump gate knowledge/construction ability was widespread, damaging/destroying the jump gate would be a viable tactic).

But my original point is that rather than each weapon system being "equal", I believe that missiles may be too good in open space - as you yourself state:

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"

So I think your point that all races will need some missile capability is probably true

My concern is that one of the problems in Starfire was that there were certain "uber-weapons" (i.e. CM) that you had to have - and that with the current rules, missiles fall into that category....

I'll wait until you release v2.6 to see how the weapon balance has been affected before saying any more (so that I don't flog the dead horse any more that I currently have.....

)

(big SNIP)

Posted by: Charlie Beeler

« on: March 09, 2008, 09:52:13 AM »

Insert Quote

Missiles are only dominant if the player designs the specific game to make them so.

In several games I've design very power missile races. The beam armed races have couple of very simple counters, albet expense to initially implement, that on a ship for ship basis pull most of the teeth from missile ships:
1) Active sensors that detect missiles at 500k, high speed turrets and lasers that match the sensors range. add a single quad turret to every combat ship and set point defense to area mode with the extreme range for engagement. Switch to point blank mode when needed for final defense.

2) Active sensors that detect missiles at 120k, light rail guns are death too most early missiles. Add 2-4 10cm rail guns dedicated to point blank missile defense on each ship. This is turning out to be even more effective that laser turrets.

In both cases the missiles are usually in the 6000-9000kps range with level 2 ecm some with 2 points of armor and these defenses are more than enough. Against the laser turrets it usually takes an ratio of 3:1 before missiles start getting regular hits. Against the railguns it's more like 4:1. If the beam ships are faster things quickly go from bad to worse for the missile ships if they don't already have overwhelming odds.

My point is that for one weapons system to dominate, the player has to want it too. In a lot of ways the single most important factor is ship speed. He who is faster ultimately controls the range of the battle. The only thing that can change that is the need to defend a fixed location like a planet.

Posted by: Steve Walmsley

« on: March 09, 2008, 07:50:34 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "MWadwell"

And my point still stands - that missiles are THE dominant weapon today. With the Aurora missiles being similar to missiles today, it means that it is likely that missiles will also be the dominant weapon in Aurora.....

They will be useful but they won't be dominant. Take this paragraph from my current campaign for example...

"Commander Preston on the Iroquois was faced with a dilemma. As far as Military Intelligence knew, the Kirov class battlecruiser he faced was armed with 15cm lasers and had no missiles, giving the Iroquois a huge range advantage although the Frunze could maintain fire indefinitely while his own ship had sixty missiles. Those missiles were probably enough to handle the Frunze if he could hit with perhaps least half of them. However, with the Frunze sat right on the alien jump gate, if it detected his missiles it could simply transit the jump point and his missiles would lose lock. Ironically, the only way to close in and destroy the battlecruiser would be with beam weapons. He was effectively helpless while the Frunze could move between systems scanning for the Oceanian survey ships."

Quote

While missiles are 4 times the size, this will only affect the total number of missiles carried by a ship (as well as reducing the number of launchers).

When you consider the range of the missiles verse the range of the beam weapons, a ship with a single launcher (and large enough magazine space) will be able to defeat any beam weapon (as long as the magazine is sufficient) - as no missile defense is going to be 100% missile proof.

I'm sorry but that plainly isn't the case. Because of the high shield recharge rate in Aurora, an occasional missile hit is completely useless. Somehow a ship is going to have get the best out of its limited missile supply. The missile ship has a finite potential for damage and then it needs to be resupplied at a friendly base. The beam ship can dish out an infinite amount of damage over time so unless the missile ship wins quick it can only run away (if it has the speed) or die. As to missile defence, missile ships are going to have to try and overwhelm defences as with modern combat because in most cases they simply won't have enough missiles to mount a sustained attack.

Quote

While you can detect the missiles at a longer range, also consider what this will mean to the stealth systems - the same detection system will also detect any stealthed beam-armed ship long before it enters beam range.

It won't make any difference to stealth ships. The sensor change is that anything below 1HS is treated as 1HS, which is why missiles are easier to detect in v2.6

Quote

Also, the fact that gauss cannon are the best anti-missile weapon, means that in addition to missiles being the dominant weapon system (and so always developed), gauss cannons will also always be the second dominant weapon system (and so also developed) due to its superior anti-missile capability.....

I don't see where the logic is for that statement. Gauss cannon are useless against other ships because of their low damage. A ship armed only with gauss cannon will lose to a ship with a single laser. The laser is probably 75% as good as the later model gauss cannon and has an anti-ship capability too. The gauss cannon will be a useful secondary armament for large ships and for very specialised escorts but it certainly won't be a dominant weapon because it is entirely defensive except as a fighter vs fighter weapon.

Quote

At the moment (without seeing any results of the combat), it seems similar to the CM in R3rd ed Starfire, once someone deploys it, it forces everyone else to use it as well......

I assume you mean from an impact perspective rather than a similar weapon, as Aurora missiles can be incredibly varied in capability, especially with the v2.6 rules. Based on what I have seen in my current campaign, I believe Empires are going to need a mix of ships for different situations. I think missiles are going to be a useful weapon but they won't be useful in all situations and against all opponents. An Empire who concentrates solely on missiles is going to be at a major disadvantage at times. Likewise, an Empire who concentrates solely on say torpedoes will be fine during a jump point engagement but it is also going to be at a severe disadvantage during in-system ranged combat.

So I think your point that all races will need some missile capability is probably true, although a race who concentrated on speed and lasers would probably give a missile user a hard time, especially with good use of formations. However, having missile capability isn't as difficult or specialised as it used to be because most missile-specific technologies have been eliminated. For example, there is no missile fuel capacity tech as the racial fuel efficiency is used. There is no specialised missile fire control because you use active sensors instead. There is no specialised on-board missile guidance because active sensors can be used instead. In other words, most missile tech is gained as a result of developing other tech you need anyway, such as active sensors and fuel efficiency. The only "missile tech" now is warhead strength and missile engines.

Steve

Posted by: MWadwell

« on: March 09, 2008, 12:07:45 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"

Quote from: "MWadwell"
To be honest, I'm a little concerned about this....

It appears that you have based your calculations based on combat that would happen today - which would tend to bias the mechanism in favour of missiles (as that is the best weapon system at the moment - exactly the same that guns were the best 100 years ago, and aircraft were the best 60 years ago).
The calculations for new missile ranges were based on internal consistency within the game rather than trying to match modern combat. This resulted in something similar to today, probably because reality is internally consistent too, but that wasn't the initial goal

But that's my point - that the missiles are similar to what they are today, rather than 20 or even 50 years ago (when missiles first appeared as viable weapons).

And my point still stands - that missiles are THE dominant weapon today. With the Aurora missiles being similar to missiles today, it means that it is likely that missiles will also be the dominant weapon in Aurora.....

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"

Quote from: "MWadwell"
For example, using the changes above (100 times range, double damage), the balance of the game has been dramatically changed in favour of missiles.
You are missing the factor that started these changes. Missiles have also been made 4x larger than before which means ships can only carry 25% of their previous load.

While missiles are 4 times the size, this will only affect the total number of missiles carried by a ship (as well as reducing the number of launchers).

When you consider the range of the missiles verse the range of the beam weapons, a ship with a single launcher (and large enough magazine space) will be able to defeat any beam weapon (as long as the magazine is sufficient) - as no missile defense is going to be 100% missile proof.

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"

Quote from: "MWadwell"
While the missiles may be easier to detect, a majority of anti-missile beam weapons are only going to get one shot against the missiles (due to the relative short range of the beam weapons c.f. to the speed of the missile) - which means for game balance, you might want to look at chenging the anti-missile ability of beam weapons to "even out" the increase in missile ability....

Although the new missiles are a little faster than before, there are some compensations in v2.6. Firstly, missiles are larger and more expensive so you will generally be faced with far fewer of them overall, although you may find larger single salvos. As they are much longer ranged, you will have more time to shoot at them if you can detect them and because of the new zero resolution rule for active sensors, you will be able to detect missiles at greater ranges. If you use the Fleet window to set up formations, that will make a significant difference because you can place anti-missile ships along the threat axis. The changes should make anti-missiles more effective too, especially as you will be able to create effective size 1 missiles and use size 1 launchers. Finally, gauss cannon appear in v2.6, which are more effective than lasers at engaging missiles.

While you can detect the missiles at a longer range, also consider what this will mean to the stealth systems - the same detection system will also detect any stealthed beam-armed ship long before it enters beam range.

Also, the fact that gauss cannon are the best anti-missile weapon, means that in addition to missiles being the dominant weapon system (and so always developed), gauss cannons will also always be the second dominant weapon system (and so also developed) due to its superior anti-missile capability.....

At the moment (without seeing any results of the combat), it seems similar to the CM in R3rd ed Starfire, once someone deploys it, it forces everyone else to use it as well......

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"

The first combat will be happening in my new campaign soon so we will see how the new missiles work out. I imagine they will do well at first and then we will see what I can come up with as countermeasures in terms of design and tactics. I have a few ideas in mind.
Steve

I look forward to seeing the results!

Posted by: Steve Walmsley

« on: March 08, 2008, 07:15:10 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "MWadwell"

To be honest, I'm a little concerned about this....

It appears that you have based your calculations based on combat that would happen today - which would tend to bias the mechanism in favour of missiles (as that is the best weapon system at the moment - exactly the same that guns were the best 100 years ago, and aircraft were the best 60 years ago).

The calculations for new missile ranges were based on internal consistency within the game rather than trying to match modern combat. This resulted in something similar to today, probably because reality is internally consistent too, but that wasn't the initial goal

Quote

For example, using the changes above (100 times range, double damage), the balance of the game has been dramatically changed in favour of missiles.

You are missing the factor that started these changes. Missiles have also been made 4x larger than before which means ships can only carry 25% of their previous load.

Quote

While the missiles may be easier to detect, a majority of anti-missile beam weapons are only going to get one shot against the missiles (due to the relative short range of the beam weapons c.f. to the speed of the missile) - which means for game balance, you might want to look at chenging the anti-missile ability of beam weapons to "even out" the increase in missile ability....

Although the new missiles are a little faster than before, there are some compensations in v2.6. Firstly, missiles are larger and more expensive so you will generally be faced with far fewer of them overall, although you may find larger single salvos. As they are much longer ranged, you will have more time to shoot at them if you can detect them and because of the new zero resolution rule for active sensors, you will be able to detect missiles at greater ranges. If you use the Fleet window to set up formations, that will make a significant difference because you can place anti-missile ships along the threat axis. The changes should make anti-missiles more effective too, especially as you will be able to create effective size 1 missiles and use size 1 launchers. Finally, gauss cannon appear in v2.6, which are more effective than lasers at engaging missiles.

The first combat will be happening in my new campaign soon so we will see how the new missiles work out. I imagine they will do well at first and then we will see what I can come up with as countermeasures in terms of design and tactics. I have a few ideas in mind.

Steve

Posted by: MWadwell

« on: March 07, 2008, 10:49:02 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"

(SNIP)

Although the fuel use of missiles sounds a lot at 10,000x normal and 2500 litres per MSP doesn?t sound like a lot, the range of missiles is probably going to increase by a factor of about 100. Once I started to examine them, the old missile ranges seemed seriously unrealistic.

Because missiles are now much larger in terms of magazine space, warhead strength has been doubled per MSP.

To be honest, I'm a little concerned about this....

It appears that you have based your calculations based on combat that would happen today - which would tend to bias the mechanism in favour of missiles (as that is the best weapon system at the moment - exactly the same that guns were the best 100 years ago, and aircraft were the best 60 years ago).

For example, using the changes above (100 times range, double damage), the balance of the game has been dramatically changed in favour of missiles.

While the missiles may be easier to detect, a majority of anti-missile beam weapons are only going to get one shot against the missiles (due to the relative short range of the beam weapons c.f. to the speed of the missile) - which means for game balance, you might want to look at chenging the anti-missile ability of beam weapons to "even out" the increase in missile ability....