Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 03, 2008, 05:03:25 PM
The changes are as follows:
Missiles have never really had a specified size compared to ship or fighters. For detection purposes, each point of missile size was treated as 1/10th of a hull space in v2.5. However, for magazine storage a point of missile size was more like 1/100th of a hull space. The ratio of launcher size compared to the missile size was never really specified. Therefore in v2.6, a Missile Size Point (MSP) is equal to 1/20th of a hull space. So a Size 4 missile would be 4/20ths or 1/5th of a hull space. That makes a standard launcher 20x missile size, the smallest slow-reload launcher is 5x missile size and a Box Launcher is 3x missile size.
The current types of engine are as follows:
Ship Engine: Power x1, Fuel Use x1
FAC Engine: Power x2, Fuel Use x10
Fighter Engine: Power x3, Fuel Use x100
Missile engines will follow the same progression but skip a level. They are therefore Power x5, Fuel Use x 10,000. In v2.5 they had four times the power of ship engines so this will increase their engine power by 25%. However, this will be shown a little differently on the missile design window because in the past missile engine power was separate from ship engine power. The engine power is still based on the number of MSP devoted to engines but the amount of that power takes into account the actual size of the engine in hull space terms. So a basic Nuclear Thermal Missile Drive will provide just 1 power per MSP while a Magneto-plasma Missile Drive will provide 3.2 power per MSP. Missiles are a lot smaller than ships though so that power goes a long way.
The Missile Fuel Cell Capacity tech line has been eliminated. Instead missiles can devote a section of their mass to a fuel tank, just like a ship or fighter. Each MSP can hold 2500 litres of fuel, as a single HS holds 50,000 and 1 MSP is 1/20th of a hull space. Missiles now use fuel in the same way as ships, using up the fuel as they travel. However, as a missile is never going to refuel, the fuel is added to the missile when it is built and for game purposes that provides an endurance in seconds based on the same calculation as the range for ships and fighters, including the racial fuel efficiency level. 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.
Based on the above, here are a couple of basic size 4 missiles. The first uses 1 MSP for the warhead and 1.5 MSP each for fuel and engines. As you can see the range is almost a hundred million kilometers and the missile will be in flight for almost two hours. The second missile devotes 2 MSP to the warhead, 1.25 MSP to the engine and only 0.75 MSP for fuel. It has a powerful strength-10 warhead and a forty-eight million kilometre range.
Code: [Select]
Longsword Anti-ship Missile
Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 5 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 15000 km/s Endurance: 107 minutes Range: 96.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.9375
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 150% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 30% 10k km/s 15%
Materials Required: 2.1875x Tritanium 0.75x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 294 RPCode: [Select]
Halberd Anti-ship Missile
Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 10 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 12500 km/s Endurance: 64 minutes Range: 48.2m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.5938
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 125% 3k km/s 40% 5k km/s 25% 10k km/s 12.5%
Materials Required: 2.9688x Tritanium 0.625x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 359RPThere are now four magazine types for Aurora. Magazines average only a quarter of their previous capacity but are generally cheaper per HS than before. The larger magazines are a little more efficient at storage than the smaller ones. In addition, all missile launchers now include on-mount magazine capacity equal to one missileLarge Magazine: 10 HS, 50 BP, 180 MSP
Standard Magazine: 3 HS, 15 BP, 50 MSP
Small Magazine: 1 HS, 5 BP, 15 MSP
Tiny Magazine: 0.2 HS 1 BP, 3 MSP
Missile Fire Control systems have been replaced by a variant of Active Sensors. When you design an active sensor, you have the option to designate it as a missile fire control system. This removes any general search capability but increases the range by a factor of 3. This type of sensor zeroes in on existing targets with an extremely narrow beam, using its power to increase range rather than searching a wide area. Missile Fire Controls can target any active sensor contact within range that is of sufficient size to be picked up by the fire control?s resolution, any population or any waypoint within range. If a target moves outside the range of a missile fire control system, that fire control system will lose lock-on to the target immediately following the movement phase. Missile Fire Controls designed for anti-ship use will need to be long range and therefore will likely have a high resolution while those designed to shoot at fighters or missiles will need a low resolution and will therefore probably be shorter ranged. Missile Fire Controls are now shown on the same section of the Ctrl-F7 View Tech window as Active Sensors.
Code: [Select]
Example Missile Fire Control
Active Sensor Strength: 36
Sensor Size: 3 Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 45 Maximum Range: 48,600,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 36 Crew: 15
Materials Required: 9x Duranium 27x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 360RPWhen you target a waypoint, the missiles head for a location rather than a specific object. This adds a lot of new possibilities for missile combat. For example, you could send the missiles toward a waypoint for several minutes on a different bearing than the intended target then change the fire control to point at the target. The missiles will then come in from an unexpected heading. You may want to send missiles a lot closer to a target before you illuminate it and possibly give away your position. Finally, if the missiles have their own sensors with a better resolution than your missile fire control, you might want to direct them to an area to search for targets by themselves.Although it?s not coded yet, I am also considering some type of datalink system that allows a ship to link its missile launchers to fire control systems on a different ship. This would allow a type of Aegis ship with large sensors and fire control systems that could control the missile firepower of a task group.
The missile design window has a new slider called Active Sensor. The strength of the active sensor is based on the racial active sensor strength. Each MSP of active sensor will provide 1/20th of the racial active sensor strength. So 1 MSP of active sensor for a race with an active sensor strength of 12, will create a sensor for the missile with a strength of 0.6. As with ship-based sensors, you can select a resolution for the missile sensor and the range of the sensor will be sensor strength x resolution x 10,000 km.
The missile below has 1 MSP of warhead, 0.5 MSP of fuel storage, 1.25 MSP of engine and 1.25 MSP of active sensor (at a racial strength 0f 0.6 per MSP) with a resolution of 80. Its sensor will be able to detect 4000 ton ships within 600,000 km. One possible tactic here would be to send a missile toward a waypoint where you expected enemy ships to be in 30 minutes then shut down your ship-based sensor shortly after launch. With no instructions the missile will continue to its original target location but will be constantly scanning for targets with its onboard sensor. If it detects a target of 4000 tons or more, the missile?s internal guidance will take over and home on the target. The target will get no warning from your inactive shipboard sensor and will have to detect the missile or the missile?s active sensor. It may not even have any idea who attacked it.
Code: [Select]
Homer Anti-ship Missile
Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 5 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 12500 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 32.1m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.75 Resolution: 80 Maximum Range: 600,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.8333
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 125% 3k km/s 40% 5k km/s 25% 10k km/s 12.5%
Materials Required: 1.25x Tritanium 0.75x Uridium 0.8333x Gallicite Fuel x1250
Development Cost for Project: 219RPThe logic that the missile follows during flight is as follows. The missile will check the fire control to which its launcher was assigned at the time of launch. If that control is active the missile will head for the target on which the fire control is currently locked (which may or may not be the original target). If the fire control is inactive, the missile will use any onboard sensor to try and find a target. If it still has no target, it will home on the last known location of the previous target. Even after a missile has started looking for its own targets, if the ship-board fire control reactivates and selects a new target, the missile will switch back to ship-board control. When searching for its own targets, the missile is continually re-evaluating which is the closest acceptable target and may switch if another target moves closer to the missile. Unlike v2.5 the missile will not self-destruct if it loses all fire control and will instead continue to home on the last known target location. This sets up some interesting tactical options. Because of the potentially long flight times, I have added an endurance countdown to missile salvos on the system map.
I realise these are major changes to the game but I believe it adds a wide range of options that didn?t exist before and will make missile combat both challenging and very interesting. It also fits in far more with the game as a whole and improves internal consistency.
Steve
Post by: rmcrowe on March 03, 2008, 05:19:12 PM
Need to edit the magazine definitions. You have two "Standard" sizes of vastly different capacity.
robert
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 03, 2008, 06:24:46 PM
Quote from: "rmcrowe"
Need to edit the magazine definitions. You have two "Standard" sizes of vastly different capacity.
Thanks for spotting that. I've corrected it now.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 03, 2008, 08:22:27 PM
Code: [Select]
SPG-1 Missile Fire Control
Active Sensor Strength: 36
Sensor Size: 3 Sensor HTK: 1
Primary Mode: Resolution: 20 Maximum Range: 21,600,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 36 Crew: 15
Materials Required: 9x Duranium 27x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 360 RPCode: [Select]
Mk 2 VLS Single Cell Launcher
Maximum Missile Size: 3 Hangar Reload: 22.5 minutes MF Reload: 3.7 hours
Launcher Size: 0.45 Launcher HTK: 0
Cost Per Launcher: 1.8 Crew Per Launcher: 0
Materials Required: 0.45x Duranium 1.35x Tritanium
Development Cost for Project: 18 RPCode: [Select]
Katana Anti-ship Missile
Missile Size: 3 MSP (0.15 HS) Warhead: 5 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 15
Speed: 16700 km/s Endurance: 21 minutes Range: 21.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.2083
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 250.5% 3k km/s 75% 5k km/s 50.1% 10k km/s 25.05%
Materials Required: 1.25x Tritanium 0.9583x Gallicite Fuel x625
Development Cost for Project: 221 RPCode: [Select]
Tribal class Destroyer 5950 tons 382 Crew 711.8 BP TCS 119 TH 360 EM 420
3025 km/s Armour 1 Shields 14-300 Sensors 10/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 27
Magazine 180 Replacement Parts 5
Nuclear Pulse Engine E7 (9) Power 40 Efficiency 0.70 Signature 40 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 70,000 Litres Range 30.3 billion km (115 days at full power)
Beta R300/10.5 Shields (9) Total Fuel Cost 95 Litres per day
Mk 2 VLS Single Cell Launcher (60) Missile Size 3 Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes MF Reload 3.7 hours
SPG-1 Missile Fire Control (2) Range 21.6m km Resolution 20
Katana Anti-Ship Missile (60) Speed: 16700 km/s Endurance: 21.4 minutes Range: 21.5m km Warhead: 5 MR: 15 Size: 3
SPS-375/75 Active Sensor (1) GPS 3750 Range 37.5m km Resolution 75
SPS-32/16 Active Sensor (1) GPS 320 Range 3.2m km Resolution 16
SQS-2 Thermal Sensor (1) Sensitivity 10 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 10m kmSteve
Post by: Randy on March 04, 2008, 09:03:13 AM
This is the way that AMRAAM and even ADCAP torpedoes work. Also it is a lot more stealthy to have the missile siliently cruising to its activation point and then suddently go active. Leaves no tell-tale signature to track back to the launch site
And even more importantly, greatly increases the chance for a surprise attack...
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 04, 2008, 12:35:30 PM
Quote from: "Randy"
You probably should also add the option for fire and forget, with active terminal homing not being activated until the missile reaches a designated point.
This is the way that AMRAAM and even ADCAP torpedoes work. Also it is a lot more stealthy to have the missile siliently cruising to its activation point and then suddently go active. Leaves no tell-tale signature to track back to the launch site
And even more importantly, greatly increases the chance for a surprise attack...
I went for the "always active" option for ease of coding and user interface. However, I think you are right that it would be better to have the option to activate the missile sensor at a set point, probably a waypoint set before launch. I'll have a think about how best to implement it.
Steve
Post by: Bellerophon06 on March 04, 2008, 01:38:20 PM
I agree with the idea to keep the game internally consistent, and that being the case I wanted to bring up a question on the revisions to missile combat.
With effective ranges and endurances of missiles increasing by so much, is a warhead really necessary? Using the example of your Homer Anti-ship missile, if the missile is capable of accelerating at 12500 kps for 43 minutes it would have a terminal velocity of 32250000 kps. With that much velocity the missile would do a lot of damage even without a warhead mounted.
Missiles could be given a stand-off range (don't know how hard it would be to code) so that a physical strike on the target would be necessary and would negate the above statement. If I were new to space and had the kind of acceleration and endurance that these missiles have I would use them as kinetic kill weapons without a warhead unless I had something powerful to use as a warhead. Using a nuke on a missile like the Homer would be overkill, IMHO. Of course, YMMV.
Post by: Shinanygnz on March 04, 2008, 04:49:57 PM
Quote from: "Bellerophon06"
This is my first post to this forum, and I would like to say that this is by far the most interesting and in depth space game I have ever seen.
I agree with the idea to keep the game internally consistent, and that being the case I wanted to bring up a question on the revisions to missile combat.
With effective ranges and endurances of missiles increasing by so much, is a warhead really necessary? Using the example of your Homer Anti-ship missile, if the missile is capable of accelerating at 12500 kps for 43 minutes it would have a terminal velocity of 32250000 kps. With that much velocity the missile would do a lot of damage even without a warhead mounted.
<snip>
Hiya. Just so you know, that's the speed of the missile, not it's acceleration. The "handwaviums" in this game are trans-Newtonian elements and space, which give units a top speed, instant accel/decel and change of direction, and jump points for classic sci-fi instantaneous wormhole travel between star systems.
There used to be a bunch of background info posts, but don't know if they're still around after the site move.
Stephen
Post by: Shinanygnz on March 04, 2008, 05:02:22 PM
You may have to look at tracking speeds now missiles are faster. From your 2084 setup, escort ship has these:
Quad 10cm Laser Turret Range 64,000km TS: 12800 km/s Power 12-12 RM 3 ROF 5 3 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 0
Fire Control S04 32-12800 Max Range: 64,000 km TS: 12800 km/s 84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Incoming likely to be these:
Katana Anti-Ship Missile Speed: 16700 km/s Endurance: 21.4 minutes Range: 21.5m km Warhead: 5 MR: 15 Size: 3
Not going to stop huge numbers I would have thought. Also, got any new example anti-missile missiles and how they might cope?
Cheers
Stephen
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 04, 2008, 05:48:01 PM
Quote from: "Bellerophon06"
This is my first post to this forum, and I would like to say that this is by far the most interesting and in depth space game I have ever seen.Thanks. It's always good to get positive feedback.
Quote
I agree with the idea to keep the game internally consistent, and that being the case I wanted to bring up a question on the revisions to missile combat.The 12500 kps is the speed of the missile rather than its acceleration. At first I experimented with a game model that using full newtonian physics. Unfortunately real physics can be a pain when it comes to game design because they are actually very hard to work with. Designing a spacecraft just to get to Mars proved a challenge with realistic thrust and fuel use. Therefore I decided to come up with a model that was internally consistent, had a realistic feel to it and would make a fun game. The result is a game set in space but based on a physics model more suited to naval ships than space ships. That works well though because most people are a lot more comfortable working with that than trying to deal with the constraints of actual newtonian space-flight. I have posted the technobabble background for the physics to the mechanics forum. Virtually all space games use a non-Newtonian model but sometimes get let down because of the internal consistency problem, such as fighters having much more powerful weapons than they should have for their size while ships cannot mount those weapons. That is something I am trying to avoid.
With effective ranges and endurances of missiles increasing by so much, is a warhead really necessary? Using the example of your Homer Anti-ship missile, if the missile is capable of accelerating at 12500 kps for 43 minutes it would have a terminal velocity of 32250000 kps. With that much velocity the missile would do a lot of damage even without a warhead mounted.
Quote
Missiles could be given a stand-off range (don't know how hard it would be to code) so that a physical strike on the target would be necessary and would negate the above statement. If I were new to space and had the kind of acceleration and endurance that these missiles have I would use them as kinetic kill weapons without a warhead unless I had something powerful to use as a warhead. Using a nuke on a missile like the Homer would be overkill, IMHO.
Even without the acceleration, an object moving at 12500 km/s would have a significant impact. Therefore I think for the purposes of the game model it can be assumed that missiles detonate in close proximity to the targets rather than being direct hits.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 04, 2008, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: "Shinanygnz"
SteveAlthough 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. This 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.
You may have to look at tracking speeds now missiles are faster. From your 2084 setup, escort ship has these:
Quad 10cm Laser Turret Range 64,000km TS: 12800 km/s Power 12-12 RM 3 ROF 5 3 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 0
Fire Control S04 32-12800 Max Range: 64,000 km TS: 12800 km/s 84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Incoming likely to be these:
Katana Anti-Ship Missile Speed: 16700 km/s Endurance: 21.4 minutes Range: 21.5m km Warhead: 5 MR: 15 Size: 3
Not going to stop huge numbers I would have thought.
Quote
Also, got any new example anti-missile missiles and how they might cope?
At low tech, anti-missiles won't be that effective, although here are a couple of possibilities using the Oceanian tech (only nuclear pulse engines). Against a 16700 km/s Katana, this missile will have a 24% chance to hit. Not great but you will probably get chance to use quite a few.
Code: [Select]
Size 3 Anti-Missile Missile
Missile Size: 3 MSP (0.15 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 20
Speed: 20000 km/s Endurance: 18 minutes Range: 21.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.5
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 400% 3k km/s 120% 5k km/s 80% 10k km/s 40%The trick though is going to be creating small, cheap anti-missiles. This low-tech missile has only a 12% chance to hit but three of them fired together have a 32% chance to hit and they would cost the same as a single size 3 missile and use the same magazine space.
Code: [Select]
Size 1 AMM
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 20000 km/s Endurance: 54 minutes Range: 64.3m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.5833
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 200% 3k km/s 60% 5k km/s 40% 10k km/s 20%Steve
Post by: Valhawk on March 05, 2008, 03:35:12 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The 12500 kps is the speed of the missile rather than its acceleration. At first I experimented with a game model that using full newtonian physics. Unfortunately real physics can be a pain when it comes to game design because they are actually very hard to work with. Designing a spacecraft just to get to Mars proved a challenge with realistic thrust and fuel use. Therefore I decided to come up with a model that was internally consistent, had a realistic feel to it and would make a fun game. The result is a game set in space but based on a physics model more suited to naval ships than space ships. That works well though because most people are a lot more comfortable working with that than trying to deal with the constraints of actual newtonian space-flight. I have posted the technobabble background for the physics to the mechanics forum. Virtually all space games use a non-Newtonian model but sometimes get let down because of the internal consistency problem, such as fighters having much more powerful weapons than they should have for their size while ships cannot mount those weapons. That is something I am trying to avoid.
I never really noticed the non physics of the situation. I alway just assumed that if you tell a ship to go to Mars the captain know how to do it. This game is more about strategic control anyhow. You dont really control which way a ship is pointing and the like.
Post by: Bellerophon06 on March 05, 2008, 12:52:57 PM
With the new missile combat rules, missiles could serve as mobile mines. Use a freighter to offload them near an area where you need additional firepower and then leave them there to attach hostile targets once they're in range. It would make things more interesting during jump point assaults.
Also, since the missiles now have the capability to use onboard active sensors could they also carry active ECM? It would make it easier to hit a target if you have several of them coming in on it and one of them is using ECM to confuse the targets sensors (ala-HH).
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 05, 2008, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: "Bellerophon06"
Thanks for the feedback, all. After posting I realised that I made an error as a terminal velocity of 32250000 kps would be well above the speed of light. :wink:
(I read Baen'd books)
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 06, 2008, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: "Bellerophon06"
With the new missile combat rules, missiles could serve as mobile mines. Use a freighter to offload them near an area where you need additional firepower and then leave them there to attach hostile targets once they're in range. It would make things more interesting during jump point assaults.Yes, that had occurred to me too. I played around with it a little using a waypoint to fire the missiles at. The missiles arrived at the waypoint and maintained their position with sensors active. When something moved into range, the missiles attacked. The problem is the missiles only have the fuel for a few hours if you want them to have any sort of decent attack velocity. You could still fire them close to a jump point though and then run for it if your pursuers were a few hours behind. This could form the basis for some future minefield though if I devised a type of missile body that would remain with engines down until it detected something. I would have to add a chance of failure over time but it would be consistent with the rest of the technology.
Quote
Also, since the missiles now have the capability to use onboard active sensors could they also carry active ECM? It would make it easier to hit a target if you have several of them coming in on it and one of them is using ECM to confuse the targets sensors (ala-HH).
There is ECM in v2.5, which takes the form of a half space addition to the missile. There is a separate tech line for missile ECM. In v2.6, it works slightly differently. You still develop missile ECM but them you decide how many MSP to devote to the ECM, with 1 MSP being the max and giving you the full level of currently researched ECM.
For example, if you had researched Missile ECM 2 then 1 MSP would give you 2 ECM while 0.5 MSP would give you 1 ECM and 0.25 MSP provides 0.5 ECM.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 07, 2008, 10:37:18 AM
Steve
Post by: MWadwell on March 07, 2008, 10:49:02 PM
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....
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 08, 2008, 07:15:10 AM
Quote from: "MWadwell"
To be honest, I'm a little concerned about this....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
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).
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
Post by: MWadwell on March 09, 2008, 12:07:45 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "MWadwell"To be honest, I'm a little concerned about this....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
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).
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!
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 09, 2008, 07:50:34 AM
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).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.
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
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
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 09, 2008, 09:52:13 AM
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.
Post by: MWadwell on March 10, 2008, 09:38:55 AM
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)
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 10, 2008, 09:54:32 AM
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: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 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....
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
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 12, 2008, 08:41:30 AM
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
Post by: Arwyn on March 14, 2008, 12:13:28 AM
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.
Post by: srubin6759 on March 17, 2008, 05:09:30 PM
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)
Post by: Doug Olchefske on March 19, 2008, 10:41:01 AM
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!
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 21, 2008, 06:00:13 AM
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
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 21, 2008, 06:06:48 AM
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.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
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.
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.This type of Aegis ship is going to be very useful for any major navies in an Aurora campaign.
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.
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 outSteve
Post by: Brian Neumann on April 11, 2008, 07:03:45 PM
Brian
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 20, 2008, 10:23:27 AM
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