Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Mechanics => Topic started by: Exultant on May 07, 2020, 05:46:14 AM
-
Conventional wisdom concerning PD has been that 10cm railguns beat gauss turrets at all but the highest of tech levels. However, this was not always the case in VB6, and since the updates to turret sizes in C#, the scales have tipped even further toward gauss.
I have created a spreadsheet calculator with the intention of demonstrating that by the time you hit gauss tech 3 (5000RP), nuclear pulse level tech, rail guns are only slightly better at cruiser speeds, and by the time you hit Gauss tech 4 (15000RP), ion level tech, quad gauss has already overtaken rail in terms of HS efficiency for non FAC/fighter speeds.
Link to spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FlBQE9_9CfUVIxs98QeDAii7O07fp576Hsschi4fAik/edit?usp=sharing). Make a copy to play around with numbers yourself.
The TL;DR is that rail effectiveness drops off at Ion tech because it is based on ship speed. You can define the speed at which rail overtakes gauss in terms of multiples of the racial tracking speed. For example, rail is more effective than Gauss 2 at speeds 91% or higher of racial tracking speed. However, by the time you get to gauss 4, you need to be 1.83x faster than your tracking speed in order for rail to be more efficient. Speeds in excess of 4x racial tracking are of no benefit at all, but the necessary speed multiplier rail needs caps out at 3.65x (vs. gauss tech 8), meaning you will not run into a tech level where rail cannot be superior to gauss. Fighter rail will always be more effective than a turreted gauss design for PD at expected fighter speeds. I did not check unturreted gauss fighters but since railguns are 4 shots for 3 HS (not considering crew and reactor sizes), and unturreted to hit chances are identical, it logically follows that parity is achieved around gauss 6- 8 (4shots/3HS = 8gauss/6HS, but crew sizes are different and rail needs a reactor)
The detailed explanation:
PD ability can be defined in terms of km/s of missiles able to be shot down. For example, if a laser (1 shot per tick) has a tracking speed of 4000 and it's BFC has a 100% chance to hit at point blank (not true in practice) then it has a 100% chance to hit a missile at 4000km/s and a 50% chance to hit a missile at 8000km/s. So if you have a missile traveling at 32,000km/s, you will need 32,000km/s (32,000/4000 = 8 guns) worth of PD to reliably shoot it down.
Thus, PD effectiveness = # of shots * BFC hit chance at 10kkm * Gauss factor (if applicable) * weapon tracking speed. Divide this by HS of (weapon + crew quarters + reactor for rail) to get the efficiency of the setup.
Also, rail gun and gauss turrets have a constant size at a given tech level. 10cm rails are 3HS. A quad .85 gauss turret is always 25.12HS when geared to 4x racial tracking speed assuming your turret gear ratio has kept up with BFC tracking speeds. Thus, size ratios of weapons are constant, so the only factors that matter are the gauss tech and ship speeds.
This test setup does not factor the size of the BFC into the equation. If you want a complete determination including auto calculating of the most efficient BFC to use, please check out my full PD Calculator (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10ANvL_nNYAweesxR4PZeaR0GjgHNKxphRhbH4BcFFtk/edit?usp=sharing)
-
One other note is that rail-guns with a lower chance to hit also are MORE vulnerable to ECM on missiles too. So they can become a severe liability if you have no ECCM in the fire control or you have not stayed competitive in that technology line.
The ECM modifier which is an addative modifier is applied after the tracking speed and tracking bonus is applied, this make high speed tracking weapons and fire-controls much less suceptable to ECM interference.
Example..
Incoming missile at 20.000km/s
Rail-gun fire at 4000km/s with a tracking bonus of 10% for a total of 4400km/s or 22% to hit rate, then deduct -10% for ECM difference to ECCM and you are down to 12%
Gauss turret at 16.000km/s with tracking bonus of 10% for a total of 17.600km/s or 88% hit chance, then deduct -10% for ECM difference to ECCM and you are down to 78%
After this you multiply with stuff such as Crew Grade and Officer Tactical bonuses.
We also should not forget that one shot hitting at 100% is much better than five shots hitting at 20% from a math perspective when you compare volume of fire versus quality of fire.
-
I don't have time for a proper rebuttal right now, but gauss cannons only barely break even with railguns at RoF4, and don't really supersede them in the final fire point defence role until RoF5, around when you have magnetic confinement fusion drives. Your analysis regarding hull space is spot on, but point defence efficacy per hull space is a less useful metric than missiles shot down per unit cost. Additionally, railguns do not need additional research investment to be good at point defence - a basic 10 cm version with 10,000 km range and capacitor 3 is dirt cheap and all that's necessary, so it's important to consider what technologies will need to be neglected in favour of gauss research (RoF + turret tracking speed) which adds up really fast. Gauss cannons are way more expensive on a per HS basis than railguns, though this is somewhat offset by the additional engine cost.
But I'm a little concerned about some of your spreadsheet assumptions - 5,000 km/s seems really slow for the 15,000 RP mark,which is approximately magnetoplasma drives. Buff that to 8,000 km/s and now the railguns are as good as the gauss cannons at point defence.
-
I don't have time for a proper rebuttal right now, but gauss cannons only barely break even with railguns at RoF4, and don't really supersede them in the final fire point defence role until RoF5, around when you have magnetic confinement fusion drives. Your analysis regarding hull space is spot on, but point defence efficacy per hull space is a less useful metric than missiles shot down per unit cost. Additionally, railguns do not need additional research investment to be good at point defence - a basic 10 cm version with 10,000 km range and capacitor 3 is dirt cheap and all that's necessary, so it's important to consider what technologies will need to be neglected in favour of gauss research (RoF + turret tracking speed) which adds up really fast. Gauss cannons are way more expensive on a per HS basis than railguns, though this is somewhat offset by the additional engine cost.
But I'm a little concerned about some of your spreadsheet assumptions - 5,000 km/s seems really slow for an ion-engine vessel. Buff that to 8,000 km/s and now the rail-guns are as good as the Gauss cannons at point defence.
Also then note that cost is not as much a factor anymore due to changes in maintenance mechanics.
Using low tech rail guns are probably by many a game exploit so it is kind of dubious to use low cost rail-guns as we generally compare up to date technology in these kinds of comparisons.
So space on your ships IS very important as space is no longer infinite at maintenance facilities throughout your empire. As long as you can keep all your ships docked at Earth it might not matter much, but when you need to spread out ships and defences in many dozen locations it does count quite allot.
If you a building your beam concepts around rail-guns in particular then I would not bother with Gauss technology... but if I use Laser or Particles then I would certainly consider Gauss to augment my anti missile capabilities... I can use lasers in the early game as a defence too as lasers are decently good too.
-
But I'm a little concerned about some of your spreadsheet assumptions - 5,000 km/s seems really slow for the 15,000 RP mark,which is approximately magnetoplasma drives. Buff that to 8,000 km/s and now the railguns are as good as the gauss cannons at point defence.
The base rate of cruising speed for any engine technology is about 1/3 of ship weight in engines at 100% power efficiency... that I think is a common consideration. For Ion engines in C# that is 4166km/s.
-
Also then note that cost is not as much a factor anymore due to changes in maintenance mechanics.
Using low tech rail guns are probably by many a game exploit so it is kind of dubious to use low cost rail-guns as we generally compare up to date technology in these kinds of comparisons.
So space on your ships IS very important as space is no longer infinite at maintenance facilities throughout your empire. As long as you can keep all your ships docked at Earth it might not matter much, but when you need to spread out ships and defences in many dozen locations it does count quite allot.
Why would that be a dubious assumption? Why is it an exploit? What matters is what works, not what is more 'advanced'.
As I understand, maintenance costs are dependant on the cost of the vessel itself, so the cheaper railgun ships would also be cheaper to maintain. Regarding maintenance capacity, it's not like ships will constantly be at a maintenance location, but yes, more facilities/modules will be required.
The base rate of cruising speed for any engine technology is about 1/3 of ship weight in engines at 100% power efficiency... that I think is a common consideration. For Ion engines in C# that is 4166km/s.
Huh, that feels grossly underpowered. I'm not SerBeardian, but I tend to consider around 40-50% ship weight in engines at 100% power efficiency as a baseline, which might explain why I've generally found railguns to outperform gauss cannons.
-
I don't have time for a proper rebuttal right now, but gauss cannons only barely break even with railguns at RoF4, and don't really supersede them in the final fire point defence role until RoF5, around when you have magnetic confinement fusion drives. Your analysis regarding hull space is spot on, but point defence efficacy per hull space is a less useful metric than missiles shot down per unit cost. Additionally, railguns do not need additional research investment to be good at point defence - a basic 10 cm version with 10,000 km range and capacitor 3 is dirt cheap and all that's necessary, so it's important to consider what technologies will need to be neglected in favour of gauss research (RoF + turret tracking speed) which adds up really fast. Gauss cannons are way more expensive on a per HS basis than railguns, though this is somewhat offset by the additional engine cost.
But I'm a little concerned about some of your spreadsheet assumptions - 5,000 km/s seems really slow for the 15,000 RP mark,which is approximately magnetoplasma drives. Buff that to 8,000 km/s and now the railguns are as good as the gauss cannons at point defence.
Thanks for your response!
Yes, I did not take into account cost per PD km/s. Rail will always win, because it's basic tech (slightly higher for capacitor 3 tech). But as others have said, cost will determine how many you can build for the same cost, but maintenance capacity is based on tonnage, so that tonnage isn't free anymore.
The spreadsheet assumption of speed was simply where I left it after tests. You will find that the rail gun line auto updates as you increase ship speed, and you can double check my breakpoints that I put in column L yourself. The highlighted breakpoints are what matter, they are based on speed's percentage of racial tracking speed.
Magnetoplasma era means your racial tracking speed is 5k, not 4k. This means that 8000km/s is 1.6x the racial tracking, which means that Gauss 4 is still more efficient (breakpoint multiplier vs Gauss 4 is 1.83x). You can double check that by updating the racial tracking value in the spreadsheet for tech of the era you desire.
You can find RP costs on the tech tree, which some one else on the forums posted and I found here (http://db48x.net/Aurora/Aurora%201.9.3%20Tech%20Tree%20(by%20field).svg)
-
Also then note that cost is not as much a factor anymore due to changes in maintenance mechanics.
Using low tech rail guns are probably by many a game exploit so it is kind of dubious to use low cost rail-guns as we generally compare up to date technology in these kinds of comparisons.
So space on your ships IS very important as space is no longer infinite at maintenance facilities throughout your empire. As long as you can keep all your ships docked at Earth it might not matter much, but when you need to spread out ships and defences in many dozen locations it does count quite allot.
Why would that be a dubious assumption? Why is it an exploit? What matters is what works, not what is more 'advanced'.
As I understand, maintenance costs are dependant on the cost of the vessel itself, so the cheaper railgun ships would also be cheaper to maintain. Regarding maintenance capacity, it's not like ships will constantly be at a maintenance location, but yes, more facilities/modules will be required.
As with many other things in Aurora... some things are considered an exploit.. this is one such thing. Allot of people will just ignore it because it make no sense from a RP perspective that due to a quirk in game mechanic you can game the game... earlier technology should simply not be better than later technology weapons and that is why many people view it as an exploit.
No NPR will use it so there is no point in exploiting this gap yourself either.
-
We also should not forget that one shot hitting at 100% is much better than five shots hitting at 20% from a math perspective when you compare volume of fire versus quality of fire.
Not sure why you would say that, it only affects the standard deviation not the expected value
-
We also should not forget that one shot hitting at 100% is much better than five shots hitting at 20% from a math perspective when you compare volume of fire versus quality of fire.
Not sure why you would say that, it only affects the standard deviation not the expected value
It matters as you often engage small or parts of volleys and high accuracy shots waste less ammunition.
1 shot at 100% hit 1 missiles 100% while 2 shots at 50% miss 1 missile 25% of the time. In Aurora we are limited to one weapon or turret per salvo so it does matter. It can be to the benefit of the Rail-gun too as it can use about 4 individual weapons to one Gauss as well.. so it is not entirely beneficial to Gauss here, hard to say actually. But generally when you do actual practical tests you will see that high accuracy produce less leakers, less now when BFC ignore salvos, but weapons still do.
-
It matters as you often engage small or parts of volleys and high accuracy shots waste less ammunition.
1 shot at 100% hit 1 missiles 100% while 2 shots at 50% miss 1 missile 25% of the time. In Aurora we are limited to one weapon or turret per salvo so it does matter.
What? No it's one salvo per weapon, not the opposite. 2 shots at 50% hit 2 missiles 25% of the time, hence the same expected value.
And your argument about ammunition doesn't make sense for me, you're talking about the 1% failure chance ? Cause if that's the case, well we're also looking at a binomial distribution with somewhat linear MSP cost, so it's not relevant
-
It matters as you often engage small or parts of volleys and high accuracy shots waste less ammunition.
1 shot at 100% hit 1 missiles 100% while 2 shots at 50% miss 1 missile 25% of the time. In Aurora we are limited to one weapon or turret per salvo so it does matter.
What? No it's one salvo per weapon, not the opposite. 2 shots at 50% hit 2 missiles 25% of the time, hence the same expected value.
And your argument about ammunition doesn't make sense for me, you're talking about the 1% failure chance ? Cause if that's the case, well we're also looking at a binomial distribution with somewhat linear MSP cost, so it's not relevant
One weapon can only ever target one salvo not two, that is exactly what I meant. This means that often a small part of a salvo is left, perhaps one or two missles and this is when a high accuracy with low volume of fire is better than the reverse.
Say you engage a salvo with a laser at 100% accuracy, there only are 1 missile left, you will hit that missile 100% of the time so you are sure to destroy it. But if you instead fire at it with two lasers (in the same turret) which both have a 50% chance to hit then there is a 25% chance that you don't hit the missile at all, there also is a 25% chance you hit twice but that second hit don't matter as you can only shoot it down once.
This is also why you don't want to put too many Gauss into one turret, so you don't waste too many shots on overkill parts of salvos.
-
You're pulling out a very specific situation that never arises to prove your general point?
Say you engage a salvo with a laser at 100% accuracy, there only are 1 missile left, you will hit that missile 100% of the time so you are sure to destroy it. But if you instead fire at it with two lasers which both have a 50% chance to hit then there is a 25% chance that you don't hit the missile at all, there also is a 25% chance you hit twice but that second hit don't matter as you can only shoot it down once.
You won't shoot it twice... You either managed to shoot the first time and the gun will find another target, or you fail to shoot the first time and then the second gun tries to get it
"We also should not forget that one shot hitting at 100% is much better than five shots hitting at 20% from a math perspective when you compare volume of fire versus quality of fire."
Math wise it's the same. And in the game, you have multiple salvoes with multiple missiles against multiple guns/turrets.
-
Mathwise it is NOT the same.
1 Shot with a 100% hit chance has a 0% miss chance.
5 Shots with a 20% hit chance have a 80% miss chance, you don't get to simply add them to get to 100%, because doing so means you have a 400% chance of missing.
Mathwise it works like this:
5 shots with a 20% hit rate: Probability of a hit = 1-(1-.2)^5 which equates to a 67.23% chance to hit.
One can never get a 100% hit number with a 20% hit chance, let's make a 20 gun turret 1-(1-.2)^20 still only equates to a 98.85% chance to hit.
So math says it is best to have as many 100% hit chance platforms as there are incoming missiles, if that is not achievable, one will want to have higher hit rate weapons. There is a fairly insignificant difference of volume of fire and hit rate in a direct ratio, aiming for 50% is significantly worse than 100% and slightly better than 25%, significantly better than 10%.
Math with number of shots inverted with 1/number of shots hit chance.
1 shot = 100% hit chance = 100% hit rate
2 shot = 50% hit chance = 75% hit rate
3 shot = 33% hit chance = 70% hit rate
4 shot = 25% hit chance = 68% hit rate
5 shot = 20% hit chance = 67% hit rate
10 shot - 10% hit chance = 65% hit rate
-
You're pulling out a very specific situation that never arises to prove your general point?
Say you engage a salvo with a laser at 100% accuracy, there only are 1 missile left, you will hit that missile 100% of the time so you are sure to destroy it. But if you instead fire at it with two lasers which both have a 50% chance to hit then there is a 25% chance that you don't hit the missile at all, there also is a 25% chance you hit twice but that second hit don't matter as you can only shoot it down once.
You won't shoot it twice... You either managed to shoot the first time and the gun will find another target, or you fail to shoot the first time and then the second gun tries to get it
But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.
I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.
As Pedroig explained above how it works so well.
-
Mathwise it is NOT the same.
1 Shot with a 100% hit chance has a 0% miss chance.
5 Shots with a 20% hit chance have a 80% miss chance, you don't get to simply add them to get to 100%, because doing so means you have a 400% chance of missing.
Mathwise it works like this:
5 shots with a 20% hit rate: Probability of a hit = 1-(1-.2)^5 which equates to a 67.23% chance to hit.
One can never get a 100% hit number with a 20% hit chance, let's make a 20 gun turret 1-(1-.2)^20 still only equates to a 98.85% chance to hit.
So math says it is best to have as many 100% hit chance platforms as there are incoming missiles, if that is not achievable, one will want to have higher hit rate weapons. There is a fairly insignificant difference of volume of fire and hit rate in a direct ratio, aiming for 50% is significantly worse than 100% and slightly better than 25%, significantly better than 10%.
Math with number of shots inverted with 1/number of shots hit chance.
1 shot = 100% hit chance = 100% hit rate
2 shot = 50% hit chance = 75% hit rate
3 shot = 33% hit chance = 70% hit rate
4 shot = 25% hit chance = 68% hit rate
5 shot = 20% hit chance = 67% hit rate
10 shot - 10% hit chance = 65% hit rate
You're not taking into account the times where multiple guns are hitting. This is a binomial distribution. The expected value of shot missiles stay the same (1), the standard deviation change.
-
But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.
I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.
As Pedroig explained above how it works so well.
We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning? Not quad gauss with single turret
-
But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.
I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.
We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?
This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...
Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.
Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.
I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.
There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.
I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.
The distribution might look something like this...
Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7
That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...
Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1
The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6
The result is...
Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0
I hope you understand the difference here?!?
-
Mathwise it is NOT the same.
1 Shot with a 100% hit chance has a 0% miss chance.
5 Shots with a 20% hit chance have a 80% miss chance, you don't get to simply add them to get to 100%, because doing so means you have a 400% chance of missing.
Mathwise it works like this:
5 shots with a 20% hit rate: Probability of a hit = 1-(1-.2)^5 which equates to a 67.23% chance to hit.
One can never get a 100% hit number with a 20% hit chance, let's make a 20 gun turret 1-(1-.2)^20 still only equates to a 98.85% chance to hit.
So math says it is best to have as many 100% hit chance platforms as there are incoming missiles, if that is not achievable, one will want to have higher hit rate weapons. There is a fairly insignificant difference of volume of fire and hit rate in a direct ratio, aiming for 50% is significantly worse than 100% and slightly better than 25%, significantly better than 10%.
Math with number of shots inverted with 1/number of shots hit chance.
1 shot = 100% hit chance = 100% hit rate
2 shot = 50% hit chance = 75% hit rate
3 shot = 33% hit chance = 70% hit rate
4 shot = 25% hit chance = 68% hit rate
5 shot = 20% hit chance = 67% hit rate
10 shot - 10% hit chance = 65% hit rate
You're not taking into account the times where multiple guns are hitting. This is a binomial distribution. The expected value of shot missiles stay the same (1), the standard deviation change.
That's because multiple guns hitting the same target have no effect on the probability. You don't get to apply cumulative distribution because the success or failure of any given "shot" has no effect on any other "shot" taken before, during, or after. And since the calculations are done on a salvo basis per BFC you don't get to apply hypergeometric distribution either, in otherwords whether you have 1 gun firing at 1 missile out of 10 or 10 guns firing at 1 missile out of 10 makes no difference, if the one missile is destroyed or has no effect on the other 9, the targeting is not dynamic WITHIN a salvo.
-
Thankfully, I have no intention of equal-tech PvP Aurora duels, so it doesn't matter. Gauss Cannons are better when you want to use gauss cannons and Rail Guns are better when you want to use rail guns.
And nothing is any use when spoiler race uses inertia-cancelling super-tech to inflict massive unsoakable internal damage.
-
...whether you have 1 gun firing at 1 missile out of 10 or 10 guns firing at 1 missile out of 10 makes no difference, if the one missile is destroyed or has no effect on the other 9, the targeting is not dynamic WITHIN a salvo.
Clarify this for me.
Let's say I have a single BFC controlling 10 guns.
I target a salvo with 10 missiles.
Will all 10 guns shoot at the same missile, even if the first gun destroys that missile?
-
...whether you have 1 gun firing at 1 missile out of 10 or 10 guns firing at 1 missile out of 10 makes no difference, if the one missile is destroyed or has no effect on the other 9, the targeting is not dynamic WITHIN a salvo.
Clarify this for me.
Let's say I have a single BFC controlling 10 guns.
I target a salvo with 10 missiles.
Will all 10 guns shoot at the same missile, even if the first gun destroys that missile?
No...
One BFC can target ANY amount of missiles salvos.
One weapon or turret can only target ONE salvo.
If you have 10 turrets they can all target the same salvo OR ten different salvos.
-
Conventional wisdom concerning PD has been that 10cm railguns beat gauss turrets at all but the highest of tech levels.
As I have pointed out on discord, this is under the context of hull-mounted weapons. Comparing hull mounts to turrets is like... compare apples to oranges. The consensus is basically for fast ships, hull-mounted railguns are better than hull-mounted gausses for PD. Otherwise, stick with gauss turrets.
-
As I have pointed out on discord, this is under the context of hull-mounted weapons. Comparing hull mounts to turrets is like... compare apples to oranges. The consensus is basically for fast ships, hull-mounted railguns are better than hull-mounted gausses for PD. Otherwise, stick with gauss turrets.
And I agree with you Iceranger - That's what my math shows, and it's what I explain. However, I'm not sure you can say there is consensus, as I have been told I was wrong on discord multiple times over the past week. I don't wish to point fingers at people, however - I just wanted to make my case in an easier-to-understand format, and direct people to it if there was further disagreement.
-
That's because multiple guns hitting the same target have no effect on the probability. You don't get to apply cumulative distribution because the success or failure of any given "shot" has no effect on any other "shot" taken before, during, or after. And since the calculations are done on a salvo basis per BFC you don't get to apply hypergeometric distribution either, in otherwords whether you have 1 gun firing at 1 missile out of 10 or 10 guns firing at 1 missile out of 10 makes no difference, if the one missile is destroyed or has no effect on the other 9, the targeting is not dynamic WITHIN a salvo.
You're sure of that? That doesn't seem consistent with the changelog : "A fire control in this mode will continue to fire on incoming salvos as long as it has unfired weapons remaining. Each individual weapon or turret will only be able to engage a single salvo. This means point defence ships no longer need a large number of fire control systems, although there is still a design choice in terms of redundancy."
Seems to me it indicates a sequential calculation.Something like that : One gun shoot, if it hits, remove one missile of the salvo. If the salvo is empty, next salvo. Next gun.
What makes you think it's doing something else? You experimented?
EDIT: also that in the changelog : "Point Defence Fire Control
VB6 has a restriction that each fire control can only engage a single target during point blank fire. I've removed that restriction for C#. Each weapon can still only engage a single salvo.
In VB6, missiles moved in descending order of speed. In C# that has changed to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first. Consequently, your point defence will engage the largest salvos first."
-
Here are some of the Gauss versus Rail-gun cost benefit examples...
Two stations...
Victory I class Point Defence Base 9 994 tons 486 Crew 746.8 BP TCS 200 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 5-41 Shields 0-0 HTK 77 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 2 PPV 144
Maint Life 3.49 Years MSP 126 AFR 296% IFR 4.1% 1YR 16 5YR 237 Max Repair 60 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
10cm Railgun V10/C1 (48x4) Range 10 000km TS: 4 000 km/s Power 3-1 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 10 000 km ROF 15
Beam Fire Control R64-TS4000 (2) Max Range: 64 000 km TS: 4 000 km/s 84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R6 (10) Total Power Output 62 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS10-R1 (1) GPS 60 Range 10.7m km MCR 1.2m km Resolution 1
Victory II class Point Defence Base 9 911 tons 274 Crew 1 651.7 BP TCS 198 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 5-41 Shields 0-0 HTK 64 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 5 PPV 154.56
Maint Life 2.41 Years MSP 541 AFR 151% IFR 2.1% 1YR 128 5YR 1 924 Max Repair 94.40 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Twin Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 Turret (12x8) Range 30 000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R64-TS16000 (2) Max Range: 64 000 km TS: 16 000 km/s 84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Active Search Sensor AS10-R1 (1) GPS 60 Range 10.7m km MCR 1.2m km Resolution 1
Both also need a maintenance station like this one...
Agincourt class Maintenance Base 40 960 tons 410 Crew 1 754.3 BP TCS 819 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s No Armour Shields 0-0 HTK 53 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 0
MSP 26 Max Repair 200 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months
Maintenance Modules: 8 module(s) capable of supporting ships of 10 000 tons
The total cost of the Gauss station is roughly 3400 and the cost of the Rail gun station is 2500...
The Guass station will be roughly twice as effective and will have a build cost roughly 36% more expensive and will have maintenance cost over time about 120% more expensive.
If you put the guns on a ship you will have to pay for the fuel, engines and all that that will never work out cost wise. The rail-gun station will also be allot more vulnerable to ECM than the Gauss station which "might" be an issue in effectiveness depending on technology.
The Gauss station also save you crew if that is a concern for you... I usually use highest quality crewmen so it "might" be an important consideration.
-
This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...
So you are talking about off topic without saying it? Way to go, champ
-
As I have pointed out on discord, this is under the context of hull-mounted weapons. Comparing hull mounts to turrets is like... compare apples to oranges. The consensus is basically for fast ships, hull-mounted railguns are better than hull-mounted gausses for PD. Otherwise, stick with gauss turrets.
And I agree with you Iceranger - That's what my math shows, and it's what I explain. However, I'm not sure you can say there is consensus, as I have been told I was wrong on discord multiple times over the past week. I don't wish to point fingers at people, however - I just wanted to make my case in an easier-to-understand format, and direct people to it if there was further disagreement.
I agree that fast ship should use rail-guns for defence... I even think regular ship can do it as well if you only add a few cannons and don't want the expense or space needed for a full Gauss turret and PDFC.
Fast ships is very different than say using a PD station for example, the engine and everything surroundings it carry a huge cost even if the gun itself might be slightly more effective due to the speed of the ship.
-
This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...
So you are talking about off topic without saying it? Way to go, champ
No... if does effect how you view high volume of low accuracy shot over lower volume high accuracy... I just explained it to you, did I not?
If you remark on it I will need to explain what I mean by it... I think that is fair. ;)
-
That only affects gauss turret vs gauss turret, so not at all
-
That only affects gauss turret vs gauss turret, so not at all
It effects Rail-guns versus Gauss as well as the Rail-gun in this case are the high volume low accuracy guns and the Gauss is the low volume high accuracy one. ;)
-
But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.
I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.
We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?
This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...
Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.
Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.
I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.
There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.
I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.
The distribution might look something like this...
Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7
That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...
Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1
The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6
The result is...
Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0
I hope you understand the difference here?!?
Smaller guns have the same average but higher variance, thus they are more likely to deviate from the average.
In your example (and many others' examples), the case when the deviation goes below the average is emphasized. However, it is equally likely the end result goes above the average. Thus, smaller turrets have a chance to intercept more missiles than the average, where the 100% turrets have 0 chance of doing so.
Since we are talking statistically, one example hardly matters under a large number of trials...
-
But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.
I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.
We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?
This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...
Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.
Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.
I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.
There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.
I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.
The distribution might look something like this...
Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7
That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...
Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1
The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6
The result is...
Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0
I hope you understand the difference here?!?
Smaller guns have the same average but higher variance, thus they are more likely to deviate from the average.
In your example (and many others' examples), the case when the deviation goes below the average is emphasized. However, it is equally likely the end result goes above the average. Thus, smaller turrets have a chance to intercept more missiles than the average, where the 100% turrets have 0 chance of doing so.
Since we are talking statistically, one example hardly matters under a large number of trials...
No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.
As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.
If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.
I have done practical tests in the game and know it matters quite allot actually.
There "might" however be some cases where Rail-gun have an advantage as they have more guns and can potentially engage more salvos than Gauss turrets, especially dual or bigger Gauss turrets.
-
But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.
I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.
We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?
This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...
Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.
Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.
I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.
There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.
I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.
The distribution might look something like this...
Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7
That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...
Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1
The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6
The result is...
Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0
I hope you understand the difference here?!?
Smaller guns have the same average but higher variance, thus they are more likely to deviate from the average.
In your example (and many others' examples), the case when the deviation goes below the average is emphasized. However, it is equally likely the end result goes above the average. Thus, smaller turrets have a chance to intercept more missiles than the average, where the 100% turrets have 0 chance of doing so.
Since we are talking statistically, one example hardly matters under a large number of trials...
No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.
As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.
If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.
Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...
Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.
-
But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.
I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.
We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?
This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...
Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.
Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.
I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.
There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.
I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.
The distribution might look something like this...
Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7
That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...
Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1
The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6
The result is...
Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0
I hope you understand the difference here?!?
Smaller guns have the same average but higher variance, thus they are more likely to deviate from the average.
In your example (and many others' examples), the case when the deviation goes below the average is emphasized. However, it is equally likely the end result goes above the average. Thus, smaller turrets have a chance to intercept more missiles than the average, where the 100% turrets have 0 chance of doing so.
Since we are talking statistically, one example hardly matters under a large number of trials...
No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.
As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.
If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.
Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...
Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.
Can you expand on that as I did not follow... 2 turrets can only engage two salvoes no matter what is in those turrets?!?
But I might not understand the example.
-
No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.
As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.
If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.
Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...
Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.
Can you expand on that as I did not follow... 2 turrets can only engage two salvoes no matter what is in those turrets?!?
But I might not understand the example.
Against a salvo of 5 missiles, a single 100% quad gauss can only shot down 4 of them, and the game will use a second turret to target the remaining 1 missile, effectively wasting 3 shots.
Thus if you have 8 salvos of 5 missiles against 10 100% quad gauss turrets, only 5 salvos can be engaged.
-
I think we are getting somewhat off topic here talking about comparing different sized Gauss. Going back to the original point of Gauss vs Rails, it is clear that yes, Gauss have improved in viability compared to VB6. I do think that the pro-Gauss lobby as it were is still missing some points. For one, your estimation of costs Jorgen is based upon using a maintenance station costing 1750 BP. If ground based facilities are used, the cost is only 480 BP. Therefore total costs change to 1230BP for the rails vs 2130 BP, meaning a cost increase of 185% to build. What's more the maintenance cost is even more in Gauss' favour. This means they have to be stationed at a population sufficient to man the facilities, but I think that's a fine compromise in many cases.
What's more, railgun tech is basically free, the BFC's are a lot cheaper to research etc. Then, when used on fast ships as PD for a beam fleet perhaps, the Railguns have the advantage that they can be used more easily as duel role offensive and defensive armament. So yes, certainly Railguns aren't as dominant as people were claiming they were all the way to fairly end game techs, but they do very much hold advantages well into Gaus ROF 4, 5 and potentially 6, and the choice of Gauss vs Railguns is probably going to depend on what your primary striking weapons and fleet doctrine are.
-
I think we are getting somewhat off topic here talking about comparing different sized Gauss. Going back to the original point of Gauss vs Rails, it is clear that yes, Gauss have improved in viability compared to VB6. I do think that the pro-Gauss lobby as it were is still missing some points. For one, your estimation of costs Jorgen is based upon using a maintenance station costing 1750 BP. If ground based facilities are used, the cost is only 480 BP. Therefore total costs change to 1230BP for the rails vs 2130 BP, meaning a cost increase of 185% to build. What's more the maintenance cost is even more in Gauss' favour. This means they have to be stationed at a population sufficient to man the facilities, but I think that's a fine compromise in many cases.
What's more, railgun tech is basically free, the BFC's are a lot cheaper to research etc. Then, when used on fast ships as PD for a beam fleet perhaps, the Railguns have the advantage that they can be used more easily as duel role offensive and defensive armament. So yes, certainly Railguns aren't as dominant as people were claiming they were all the way to fairly end game techs, but they do very much hold advantages well into Gaus ROF 4, 5 and potentially 6, and the choice of Gauss vs Railguns is probably going to depend on what your primary striking weapons and fleet doctrine are.
In my opinion ground based is worse as they also cost population to maintain which is one of the more rare resources there is in the game (especially at advanced outposts). It is allot easier to use pure BP as no to confuse the issue even more.
I also agree with the doctrine... it depend on what you do... you can go either way and do very well.
-
No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.
As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.
If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.
Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...
Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.
Can you expand on that as I did not follow... 2 turrets can only engage two salvoes no matter what is in those turrets?!?
But I might not understand the example.
Against a salvo of 5 missiles, a single 100% quad gauss can only shot down 4 of them, and the game will use a second turret to target the remaining 1 missile, effectively wasting 3 shots.
Thus if you have 8 salvos of 5 missiles against 10 100% quad gauss turrets, only 5 salvos can be engaged.
Although Steve did some changes to how PD engages and should always choose the larger salvo now... have not really tested how that work in practice though.
-
No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.
As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.
If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.
Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...
Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.
Can you expand on that as I did not follow... 2 turrets can only engage two salvoes no matter what is in those turrets?!?
But I might not understand the example.
Against a salvo of 5 missiles, a single 100% quad gauss can only shot down 4 of them, and the game will use a second turret to target the remaining 1 missile, effectively wasting 3 shots.
Thus if you have 8 salvos of 5 missiles against 10 100% quad gauss turrets, only 5 salvos can be engaged.
Although Steve did some changes to how PD engages and should always choose the larger salvo now... have not really tested how that work in practice though.
OK since I have the setup already I did some tests. A BFC engages multiple salvos in sequential order, only when the current salvo is completely shot down the BFC will engage the next one. This is consistent with what Steve mentioned in the mechanics thread.
Our test subject:
Aberdeen class Destroyer 12,000 tons 351 Crew 5,137.4 BP TCS 240 TH 4,800 EM 0
20000 km/s Armour 6-46 Shields 0-0 HTK 69 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 10 PPV 63.36
Maint Life 2.32 Years MSP 2,675 AFR 115% IFR 1.6% 1YR 675 5YR 10,120 Max Repair 1200 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP2400.00 (2) Power 4800 Fuel Use 30.81% Signature 2400 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 849,000 Litres Range 41.3 billion km (23 days at full power)
Single Gauss Cannon R200-100 Turret (8x6) Range 20,000km TS: 40000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R600-TS40000 (1) Max Range: 600,000 km TS: 40,000 km/s
Filler (1) Total Power Output 0 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS24-R1 (1) GPS 60 Range 24.7m km MCR 2.2m km Resolution 1
ECCM-6 (1) ECM 60
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
BFC setup:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/426723819529437184/708006991452438578/unknown.png)
Incoming missiles:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/426723819529437184/708010592199376964/unknown.png)
Results:
Defender side event log:
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/426723819529437184/708010829081084034/unknown.png)
Attacker side event log:
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/426723819529437184/708010905488588920/unknown.png)
So one salve went in unopposed, both guns are directed at the first salvo, as one gun can only shoot down 6 of the 7 missiles in the salvo.
-
That's interesting. If I am reading you correctly, it seems that in order to handle multiple, simultaneous salvoes, you would need either multiple fire controls OR sufficient shots per weapon to deal with each salvo individually. That would seem to favor smaller gauss turrets to save space for multiple fire controls.
Out of curiosity: What happens if you assign a third turret to the same fire control? Does it engage the second salvo or would each turret individually need to deal with each salvo on their own?
-
Will a third gun engage the other salvo on the same BFC? Right now everything you have stated seems to be working as intended. Also were the two missile salvos launched from the same vessel on different launchers or different vessels?
-
That's intereting. If I am reading you correctly, it seems that in order to handle multiple, simultaneous salvoes, you would need either multiple fire controls OR sufficient shots per weapon to deal with each salvo individually. That would seem to favor smaller gauss turrets to save space for multiple fire controls.
Out of curiosity: What happens if you assign a third turret to the same fire control? Does it engage the second salvo or would each turret individually need to deal with each salvo on their own?
It indeed does in accordance with Steve's changelog. The 3rd turret controlled by the same BFC engaged the 2nd salvo.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/426723819529437184/708023647004131380/unknown.png)
-
Will a third gun engage the other salvo on the same BFC? Right now everything you have stated seems to be working as intended. Also were the two missile salvos launched from the same vessel on different launchers or different vessels?
Launched from the same ship under different MFCs.
-
Huh. That would also mean that with proper intel, you could propably design your salvos to cause maximum overkill.
-
Huh. That would also mean that with proper intel, you could propably design your salvos to cause maximum overkill.
As a basic rule this means that salvos should always be prime numbers... Pretty much guarantees an extra gun/turret assignment by the BFC. Makes one wonder what if mixing turret sizes under same BFC would counter. Making 1-2-3-5 shot turrets "ultimate" combination makers...
@Iceranger appreciate the on the spot real testing whilst I'm on remote and away from game.
-
Huh. That would also mean that with proper intel, you could propably design your salvos to cause maximum overkill.
As a basic rule this means that salvos should always be prime numbers... Pretty much guarantees an extra gun/turret assignment by the BFC. Makes one wonder what if mixing turret sizes under same BFC would counter. Making 1-2-3-5 shot turrets "ultimate" combination makers...
@Iceranger appreciate the on the spot real testing whilst I'm on remote and away from game.
Wouldn't that depend on the gauss ROF tech? If gauss ROF is 5, then a single, full size gauss turret would cause max overkill (by requiring two turrets) with 6-missile salvos. A triple, full size gauss turret could reliably deal with 15 missiles, so a 16-missile salvo would cause overkill.
That's why intel on gauss ROF and turret composition could be utilized to devastating effect.
-
It also depends on to hit chance? In reality I find it unlikely Gauss turrets are going to have a 100% kill chance against enemy missiles, full size or not.
-
It also depends on to hit chance? In reality I find it unlikely Gauss turrets are going to have a 100% kill chance against enemy missiles, full size or not.
that 100% is multiplied by the standard hit chance
-
It also depends on to hit chance? In reality I find it unlikely Gauss turrets are going to have a 100% kill chance against enemy missiles, full size or not.
Most likely. I would be curious to see how this plays out in an actual game, but for my speculations I was only going by Iceranger's test. There a single gauss turret with ROF 6 is assumed to be able to deal with six missiles, so the game assigns two turrets to the same salvo to reliably deal with a 7-missile salvo - causing maximum overkill.
-
It also depends on to hit chance? In reality I find it unlikely Gauss turrets are going to have a 100% kill chance against enemy missiles, full size or not.
Most likely. I would be curious to see how this plays out in an actual game, but for my speculations I was only going by Iceranger's test. There a single gauss turret with ROF 6 is assumed to be able to deal with six missiles, so the game assigns two turrets to the same salvo to reliably deal with a 7-missile salvo - causing maximum overkill.
Did you see my thread? http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.msg131578#msg131578 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.msg131578#msg131578)
-
Huh. That would also mean that with proper intel, you could propably design your salvos to cause maximum overkill.
As a basic rule this means that salvos should always be prime numbers... Pretty much guarantees an extra gun/turret assignment by the BFC. Makes one wonder what if mixing turret sizes under same BFC would counter. Making 1-2-3-5 shot turrets "ultimate" combination makers...
@Iceranger appreciate the on the spot real testing whilst I'm on remote and away from game.
Wouldn't that depend on the gauss ROF tech? If gauss ROF is 5, then a single, full size gauss turret would cause max overkill (by requiring two turrets) with 6-missile salvos. A triple, full size gauss turret could reliably deal with 15 missiles, so a 16-missile salvo would cause overkill.
That's why intel on gauss ROF and turret composition could be utilized to devastating effect.
ROF plays a part, but that is why prime number salvos are important. 7 salvo will require a minimum of 2 ROF 4 or 5 turrets and 3 ROF 3 turret. Next up would be 11. Continually using prime numbers for salvo size will guarantee "wastage" one way or another. Having 32 shots fired at a 31 salvo or 23 shots fired at a 37 salvo are effective in different ways, either through wasted shots or leakage. And that is only considering 100% hit rates, as soon as that dips wasted shots and leakage will both increase.
-
It also depends on to hit chance? In reality I find it unlikely Gauss turrets are going to have a 100% kill chance against enemy missiles, full size or not.
Most likely. I would be curious to see how this plays out in an actual game, but for my speculations I was only going by Iceranger's test. There a single gauss turret with ROF 6 is assumed to be able to deal with six missiles, so the game assigns two turrets to the same salvo to reliably deal with a 7-missile salvo - causing maximum overkill.
I don't think the game 'assigned' 2 guns in the first place. I think the engagement goes by the FC picking one (the largest) salvo, pick a gun and do the interception. If a salvo is not completely destroyed, pick a 2nd gun and fire, until the salvo is destroyed. At that point, pick the next salvo, and pick the next gun to repeat the above.
So for non 100% accuracies, larger turrets always have higher 'expected hits' than smaller ones, thus having larger granularity in the process, thus potentially wasting more shots than smaller turrets.
-
I don't think the game 'assigned' 2 guns in the first place. I think the engagement goes by the FC picking one (the largest) salvo, pick a gun and do the interception. If a salvo is not completely destroyed, pick a 2nd gun and fire, until the salvo is destroyed. At that point, pick the next salvo, and pick the next gun to repeat the above.
So for non 100% accuracies, larger turrets always have higher 'expected hits' than smaller ones, thus having larger granularity in the process, thus potentially wasting more shots than smaller turrets.
This is how I suspect that it works too so depending on the environment you might be better of with smaller turrets. But if you repeatedly get attacked with 50+ salvos then larger turrets might still be better as there are some wight savings and with armour also make the ship more difficult to destroy... but in general smaller turrets is better due to how salvos and engagements work... which is kind of sad. :(
Large turrets for anti-ship work with several guns are pretty good though.
I'm going to test how the game assign the turrets for fun...
***Edit***
Sorry... did not see you already did the test... I got the same results obviously.
It is a bit sad as the smaller the turret the better the performance despite weight savings. :(
-
I don't think the game 'assigned' 2 guns in the first place. I think the engagement goes by the FC picking one (the largest) salvo, pick a gun and do the interception. If a salvo is not completely destroyed, pick a 2nd gun and fire, until the salvo is destroyed. At that point, pick the next salvo, and pick the next gun to repeat the above.
So for non 100% accuracies, larger turrets always have higher 'expected hits' than smaller ones, thus having larger granularity in the process, thus potentially wasting more shots than smaller turrets.
This is how I suspect that it works too so depending on the environment you might be better of with smaller turrets. But if you repeatedly get attacked with 50+ salvos then larger turrets might still be better as there are some wight savings and with armour also make the ship more difficult to destroy... but in general smaller turrets is better due to how salvos and engagements work... which is kind of sad. :(
Large turrets for anti-ship work with several guns are pretty good though.
I'm going to test how the game assign the turrets for fun...
***Edit***
Sorry... did not see you already did the test... I got the same results obviously.
It is a bit sad as the smaller the turret the better the performance despite weight savings. :(
Smaller turrets don't save weight though (not counting crew/engineering and such) I think? You need more smaller turrets to have the same average, the tonnage of the guns/turrets are the same for the same theoretical shot down. Smaller turrets are more flexible though since they are small :)
-
I don't think the game 'assigned' 2 guns in the first place. I think the engagement goes by the FC picking one (the largest) salvo, pick a gun and do the interception. If a salvo is not completely destroyed, pick a 2nd gun and fire, until the salvo is destroyed. At that point, pick the next salvo, and pick the next gun to repeat the above.
So for non 100% accuracies, larger turrets always have higher 'expected hits' than smaller ones, thus having larger granularity in the process, thus potentially wasting more shots than smaller turrets.
This is how I suspect that it works too so depending on the environment you might be better of with smaller turrets. But if you repeatedly get attacked with 50+ salvos then larger turrets might still be better as there are some wight savings and with armour also make the ship more difficult to destroy... but in general smaller turrets is better due to how salvos and engagements work... which is kind of sad. :(
Large turrets for anti-ship work with several guns are pretty good though.
I'm going to test how the game assign the turrets for fun...
***Edit***
Sorry... did not see you already did the test... I got the same results obviously.
It is a bit sad as the smaller the turret the better the performance despite weight savings. :(
Smaller turrets don't save weight though (not counting crew/engineering and such) I think? You need more smaller turrets to have the same average, the tonnage of the guns/turrets are the same for the same theoretical shot down. Smaller turrets are more flexible though since they are small :)
Kinda curious how MSP plays a role in this due to weapon failure. Do the smaller turrets take 1/6 of the MSP to repair?
-
I don't think the game 'assigned' 2 guns in the first place. I think the engagement goes by the FC picking one (the largest) salvo, pick a gun and do the interception. If a salvo is not completely destroyed, pick a 2nd gun and fire, until the salvo is destroyed. At that point, pick the next salvo, and pick the next gun to repeat the above.
So for non 100% accuracies, larger turrets always have higher 'expected hits' than smaller ones, thus having larger granularity in the process, thus potentially wasting more shots than smaller turrets.
This is how I suspect that it works too so depending on the environment you might be better of with smaller turrets. But if you repeatedly get attacked with 50+ salvos then larger turrets might still be better as there are some wight savings and with armour also make the ship more difficult to destroy... but in general smaller turrets is better due to how salvos and engagements work... which is kind of sad. :(
Large turrets for anti-ship work with several guns are pretty good though.
I'm going to test how the game assign the turrets for fun...
***Edit***
Sorry... did not see you already did the test... I got the same results obviously.
It is a bit sad as the smaller the turret the better the performance despite weight savings. :(
Smaller turrets don't save weight though (not counting crew/engineering and such) I think? You need more smaller turrets to have the same average, the tonnage of the guns/turrets are the same for the same theoretical shot down. Smaller turrets are more flexible though since they are small :)
Kinda curious how MSP plays a role in this due to weapon failure. Do the smaller turrets take 1/6 of the MSP to repair?
seems to be proportional
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/426723819529437184/708105615041626122/unknown.png)
-
Pedroig, Smoelf:
You mean shots. Gauss ROF is always 5 (seconds).
"Gauss (1x6) ROF 5" is ONE gauss cannon that fires SIX shots every FIVE second interval.
Iceranger:
The fire control doesn't 'pick' -- the order is "fastest missiles move (largest salvo first), and this movement triggers Final Defensive Fire (if applicable), at which point the (numerically) first beam fire control fires all the shots of the (numerically) first beam weapon (or turret) and destroys (or not) X missiles. If any missiles remain in this salvo, then the next weapon/turret fires all of its shots. Repeat until no missiles (or no weapons) remain."
At which point the next largest salvo of that speed moves (or the largest salvo of the next fastest missiles) and the whole thing repeats until all missiles have moved.
-
Pedroig, Smoelf:
You mean shots. Gauss ROF is always 5 (seconds).
"Gauss (1x6) ROF 5" is ONE gauss cannon that fires SIX shots every FIVE second interval.
Yes, I know. I was referring to the 'Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire' tech line. I simply shortened it to ROF because that's how the game refers to it.
-
Pedroig, Smoelf:
You mean shots. Gauss ROF is always 5 (seconds).
"Gauss (1x6) ROF 5" is ONE gauss cannon that fires SIX shots every FIVE second interval.
Yes, I know. I was referring to the 'Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire' tech line. I simply shortened it to ROF because that's how the game refers to it.
IBID
-
I don't think the game 'assigned' 2 guns in the first place. I think the engagement goes by the FC picking one (the largest) salvo, pick a gun and do the interception. If a salvo is not completely destroyed, pick a 2nd gun and fire, until the salvo is destroyed. At that point, pick the next salvo, and pick the next gun to repeat the above.
So for non 100% accuracies, larger turrets always have higher 'expected hits' than smaller ones, thus having larger granularity in the process, thus potentially wasting more shots than smaller turrets.
This is how I suspect that it works too so depending on the environment you might be better of with smaller turrets. But if you repeatedly get attacked with 50+ salvos then larger turrets might still be better as there are some wight savings and with armour also make the ship more difficult to destroy... but in general smaller turrets is better due to how salvos and engagements work... which is kind of sad. :(
Large turrets for anti-ship work with several guns are pretty good though.
I'm going to test how the game assign the turrets for fun...
***Edit***
Sorry... did not see you already did the test... I got the same results obviously.
It is a bit sad as the smaller the turret the better the performance despite weight savings. :(
Smaller turrets don't save weight though (not counting crew/engineering and such) I think? You need more smaller turrets to have the same average, the tonnage of the guns/turrets are the same for the same theoretical shot down. Smaller turrets are more flexible though since they are small :)
Kinda curious how MSP plays a role in this due to weapon failure. Do the smaller turrets take 1/6 of the MSP to repair?
seems to be proportional
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/426723819529437184/708105615041626122/unknown.png)
They save weight on ships in other more indirect ways such as you need less engineering sections to get a higher average maintenance life expectancy if you use a cheaper component that does the same thing as a bigger more expensive component.
Two examples...
Leeuhof class Frigate 10 000 tons 269 Crew 1 634.8 BP TCS 200 TH 250 EM 0
1250 km/s Armour 4-41 Shields 0-0 HTK 54 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 4 PPV 142.8
Maint Life 2.10 Years MSP 408 AFR 200% IFR 2.8% 1YR 124 5YR 1 857 Max Repair 125.00 MSP
Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP250.00 (1) Power 250.0 Fuel Use 49.50% Signature 250.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 93 000 Litres Range 3.4 billion km (31 days at full power)
Single Gauss Cannon R400-100 Turret (17x4) Range 40 000km TS: 20000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R80-TS20000 (2) Max Range: 80 000 km TS: 20 000 km/s 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Active Search Sensor AS5-R1 (1) GPS 20 Range 5.6m km MCR 614.4k km Resolution 1
Leeuhof - Copy class Frigate 9 754 tons 259 Crew 1 593.6 BP TCS 195 TH 250 EM 0
1281 km/s Armour 4-40 Shields 0-0 HTK 118 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 2 PPV 140.0
Maint Life 2.13 Years MSP 250 AFR 311% IFR 4.3% 1YR 74 5YR 1 109 Max Repair 125.00 MSP
Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP250.00 (1) Power 250.0 Fuel Use 49.50% Signature 250.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 93 000 Litres Range 3.5 billion km (31 days at full power)
Single Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 Turret (100x4) Range 40 000km TS: 20000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R80-TS20000 (2) Max Range: 80 000 km TS: 20 000 km/s 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Active Search Sensor AS5-R1 (1) GPS 20 Range 5.6m km MCR 614.4k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
These are not real ships... just for quick demonstration with what I had in my test environment...
-
Pedroig, Smoelf:
You mean shots. Gauss ROF is always 5 (seconds).
"Gauss (1x6) ROF 5" is ONE gauss cannon that fires SIX shots every FIVE second interval.
Yes, I know. I was referring to the 'Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire' tech line. I simply shortened it to ROF because that's how the game refers to it.
My point is that it is not how the game refers to it, and that Aurora uses "ROF" to mean something else. There was an entire thread a month ago based on this very misunderstanding.
-
Pedroig, Smoelf:
You mean shots. Gauss ROF is always 5 (seconds).
"Gauss (1x6) ROF 5" is ONE gauss cannon that fires SIX shots every FIVE second interval.
Yes, I know. I was referring to the 'Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire' tech line. I simply shortened it to ROF because that's how the game refers to it.
My point is that it is not how the game refers to it, and that Aurora uses "ROF" to mean something else. There was an entire thread a month ago based on this very misunderstanding.
"Rate of Fire" is exactly how the game refers to the tech line.
"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 2"
"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 3"
"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 4"
etc.
This is the name of the tech line. This is what they are talking about. They are abbreviating that as ROF
-
"Rate of Fire" is exactly how the game refers to the tech line.
Yes.
"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 2"
Yes.
"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 3"
Yes.
"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 4"
etc.
Yes.
This is the name of the tech line.
Yes.
This is what they are talking about.
Yes.
They are abbreviating that as ROF
And this is the part that's wrong, because that abbreviation is already used by Aurora to mean something else.
We have enough trouble with MSP and MSP; we don't need to add to it.
-
Gauss shoot every 5 seconds no matter what, it's obvious that ROF mean how many shot are fired in 5 sec in that context. You're the only one who misunderstood that, and I'm probably sure you did understand very well what was described but you chose to fight for semantics just for the sake of it.
-
ROF is ROF, rate of fire, BY DEFINITION means number of shots/rounds over a set of time. Since gauss ALWAYS uses 5 seconds as the time interval ROF means shots/rounds per 5 seconds. The fact that it is used wrongly in parts of the game makes no difference.
A musket or a howitzer has a ROF of 3 rounds per minute.
A Machine Gun has a ROF of 300 rounds per minute
A MLRS has a ROF of 1 round per 10 seconds
A SCUD has a ROF of 1 round per 8 hours.
A weapon which can fire 4 shots in 5 seconds has a ROF of 4 per 5 seconds
A weapon which can fire 1 shot every 15 seconds has a ROF of 1/3 per 5 seconds
-
Aurora already uses "ROF" to mean the number of seconds until a weapon can fire again. . . whether it fires single shots or bursts. It's right there in the summary line of every weapon in the game and has already caused confusion for new players when they see, for example, CIWS firing the 'wrong' number of shots.
It is not a good idea to increase that confusion by using an established game term to mean something else.
-
The "established game term" needs to be changed to match up to basic English definition. ROF is rate of fire. Recharge is the mechanic which the game is incorrectly labeling ROF. Keeping something because it is "Established" is asinine. It should be corrected to abide by simple English rules/definition, which for international players is tricky enough with all its exceptions to the rules. "We've always done it that way" is as poor of an excuse as "Just following orders" for doing something wrong.
-
OMG! At times this entire thread gives me flashbacks to the great statistics debate on the old Starfire mailing list.
Although you guys seem to have avoided becoming as toxic as that one did, I'll give you that.
Kurt
-
OMG! At times this entire thread gives me flashbacks to the great statistics debate on the old Starfire mailing list.
Although you guys seem to have avoided becoming as toxic as that one did, I'll give you that.
Kurt
To be honest there were some pretty good discussion and evaluations and conclusions from this thread... discussions is healthy as long as you can change your view in the face of new evidence. ;)
I know that people often become entrenched in a certain view and then it become personal to be right for the sake of being right, that happen from time to time.