Post by: Erik L on November 05, 2008, 04:30:36 PM
Max tech Fire Control has a maximum tracking speed of 80,000km/s. Max tech missile speed is c. What are the chances of using anything other than missiles at this level?
Max Tech Fire Control
Code: [Select]
50% Accuracy at Range: 700,000 km Tracking Speed: 80000 km/s
Size: 16 HTK: 1 Cost: 8400 Crew: 80
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 10%
Materials Required: 2100x Duranium 6300x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 84000RP
Max Tech Missile v1
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 16.5 MSP (0.825 HS) Warhead: 67 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 300000 km/s Endurance: 10 minutes Range: 189.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 99.8333
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3000% 3k km/s 1000% 5k km/s 600% 10k km/s 300%
Materials Required: 16.75x Tritanium 83.0833x Gallicite Fuel x4375
Development Cost for Project: 9983RP
Max Tech Missile v2
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 16.5 MSP (0.825 HS) Warhead: 7 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 300000 km/s Endurance: 22 minutes Range: 405.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 84.8333
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3000% 3k km/s 1000% 5k km/s 600% 10k km/s 300%
Materials Required: 1.75x Tritanium 83.0833x Gallicite Fuel x9375
Development Cost for Project: 8483RPMax Tech missile control
Code: [Select]
Active Sensor Strength: 900
Sensor Size: 5 Sensor HTK: 1
Primary Mode: Resolution: 20 Maximum Range: 540,000,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 10%
Cost: 2700 Crew: 25
Materials Required: 675x Duranium 2025x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 27000RP
As you can see, the maximum size missile for c missiles is 16.5. The control suite probably could be shaved down a bit, so you don't have that extra 100m km of "empty" reach. Though I didn't take into multi-stage missiles.
Okay, I've come up with the following...
MIRV Body
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 24 MSP (1.2 HS) Warhead: 0 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 208300 km/s Endurance: 24 minutes Range: 300.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 132.5833
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2083% 3k km/s 690% 5k km/s 416.6% 10k km/s 208.3%
Materials Required: 5.25x Tritanium 127.3333x Gallicite Fuel x10000
Development Cost for Project: 13258RPSubmunition (MIRV carries 3)
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 3 MSP (0.15 HS) Warhead: 7 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 300000 km/s Endurance: 17 minutes Range: 300.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 16.5
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3000% 3k km/s 1000% 5k km/s 600% 10k km/s 300%
Materials Required: 1.75x Tritanium 14.75x Gallicite Fuel x1250
Development Cost for Project: 1650RPThis extends my punch out to 600m km. Yes, the first stage is the easier one to intercept, but what exactly would it take to knock down a flight of those? Max Tech GC have a range of 60,000 km, which is suicidally close in my opinion for these missiles. Max Tech laser (30cm, RoF 5sec) has a range of 2.88m km. Beam FC as we see above only has a range of 700,000 km, or 1/4 the range of my lasers. A PDC variant has a range of 1.05m km. Still around 33% of the range of my lasers.
Looking at other beam weapons...
Microwaves have a max range of 10.08m km.
Plasma carronade have a max range of 1.68m km.
Railguns have a max range of 1.8m km.
Meson have a max range of 10.08m km.
The torpedo has a max range of 1.2m km.
80cm Far Gamma laser has a max range of 20.16m km.
Okay... after that rambling post... the conclusion I've come to, is that there needs to be some sort of assisted targeting system for beams. Some tech line that opens up that allows a ship closer to the target to relay targeting information. I see that vessel as a stealthed scout, sneaking close. Though going active will undoubtedly shorten the lifespan of the ship greatly. Or the new sensor buoys being able to relay targeting information back.
Though missiles still have a HUGE range advantage over anything else.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 05, 2008, 06:03:58 PM
Post by: Erik L on November 05, 2008, 08:45:13 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 05, 2008, 09:31:44 PM
I have to agree that maximum control range should be equivilant to maximum weapons range. At least for beam weapons which is what we're talking about. Missile range being governed by endurance, speed, and on board guidance capability.
Don't I recall this discussion coming up before and Steve telling us that beam control was deliberately limited to a max of 1.4m km because of speed of light? At least under current accepted partical physics that's probably true. (sorry my partical physics knowledge is severly lacking and may be way off base here). Perhaps a "break through" with Tran-newtononian research allows for longer range fire control and ability to track and engage C and C+ missiles.
Post by: Erik L on November 05, 2008, 09:55:41 PM
The 5-second refire laser (30cm, 25cap, far gamma) has a range of 2.88million km. so that's not anywhere near the speed of light. And if the firecontrol is limited to speed of light, that would give a max range of 1.5 million km in a 5 second burst. Hmmm. is that right? 300,000 x 5. That means max tech lasers are FTL.
Oh. And missiles are limited to 300,000 km/s speed.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 06, 2008, 06:39:26 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Oh. And missiles are limited to 300,000 km/s speed. :twisted:
Actually, that was what I was oblequely addressing with my first response. With beam fire control limited to a max of 80k and missile being able to reach 300k point defense has a poor chance of intercepting incoming. But, if there is some kind of cumulative bonus to hit based on extended tracking time that problem can be offset to a degree.
The way I'm thinking, the bonus should cap at the elimination of the negative effects of the difference between lower tracking speed and the speed of the incoming missile. For that matter it doesn't need to be limited to PD.
It might be a reason to willingly take a slower firing beam weapon, to give fire control time to build a better firing solution.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 06, 2008, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I did wander a bit off-track in my original post... But I do think it's a valid point.Currently there are no beam fire control systems that work beyond 1.5m kilometers, which is how I have restricted beam weapons to the speed of light (5 secs x 300,000)
The 5-second refire laser (30cm, 25cap, far gamma) has a range of 2.88million km. so that's not anywhere near the speed of light. And if the firecontrol is limited to speed of light, that would give a max range of 1.5 million km in a 5 second burst. Hmmm. is that right? 300,000 x 5. That means max tech lasers are FTL.
Oh. And missiles are limited to 300,000 km/s speed.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 06, 2008, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Actually, that was what I was oblequely addressing with my first response. With beam fire control limited to a max of 80k and missile being able to reach 300k point defense has a poor chance of intercepting incoming. But, if there is some kind of cumulative bonus to hit based on extended tracking time that problem can be offset to a degree.I really like the principle of increasing chance to hit based on tracking time. I will have to give it some thought though as it would have to affect ships as well that you have been tracking for a while.
The way I'm thinking, the bonus should cap at the elimination of the negative effects of the difference between lower tracking speed and the speed of the incoming missile. For that matter it doesn't need to be limited to PD.
It might be a reason to willingly take a slower firing beam weapon, to give fire control time to build a better firing solution.
I think the beam fire control speed ratings need to be increased anyway as they are still the same as they were before the improvements to missiles but if I can come up with a good way to implement your idea then I'll up them a little and use the tracking time modifier to improve them further.
Steve
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 06, 2008, 07:38:12 PM
It stands to reason though. A snap shot is usually the least accurate. Take time to aim and chances to hit improve.
I've considering the idea for a while. Main reason I've been hesitant, was that I figured that it might to invasive in an already complex algorithm.
Just because it might be a good idea, doesn't discount that it has a high order probability to throw a spanner in the works.
Post by: Erik L on November 06, 2008, 08:31:59 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 06, 2008, 11:19:41 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Hmmm. Maybe a combat order to aim for x amount of seconds (divisible by 5). Each 5 second increment gives a +x amount to hit.I have already added code that tracks how long you have continually had a contact on active sensors. Now i just need to decide how (or if) to make use of it.
At the moment I can't decide whether to make it linear or geometrical. Linear is easier but as you usually don't have much time to engage missiles, anything linear that made a difference to missile engagement is going to make a huge difference to the much longer time you will be tracking ships. With a geometrical approach, something along the lines of the square root of the number of seconds as a percentage would mean 3% for 10 seconds, 7% for 60 seconds, 11% for 120 seconds, 24% for 10 minutes, 60% for one hour, etc. Maxing at 100% at just under three hours. This wouldn't make a huge difference to point blank missile engagements but for long range missiles if you could track them on the way in, it would make a difference. It would be a bigger difference ship to ship though.
Although if this tracking bonus instead became a way to offset a tracking speed penalty, rather than an actual bonus, it would only affect situations where you are suffering a tracking penalty and therefore would generally be much more useful in terms of anti-missile than anti-ship. In that case, it could be done in a more linear way. Perhaps along the lines of Erik's suggestion using 5 second increments. Maybe 2% per 5 seconds. That means a 10% reduction in the tracking penalty for 25 seconds and a 24% reduction in penalty if you track them for a minute. How does that sound?
Steve
Post by: Erik L on November 07, 2008, 12:05:07 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Hmmm. Maybe a combat order to aim for x amount of seconds (divisible by 5). Each 5 second increment gives a +x amount to hit.I have already added code that tracks how long you have continually had a contact on active sensors. Now i just need to decide how (or if) to make use of it.
At the moment I can't decide whether to make it linear or geometrical. Linear is easier but as you usually don't have much time to engage missiles, anything linear that made a difference to missile engagement is going to make a huge difference to the much longer time you will be tracking ships. With a geometrical approach, something along the lines of the square root of the number of seconds as a percentage would mean 3% for 10 seconds, 7% for 60 seconds, 11% for 120 seconds, 24% for 10 minutes, 60% for one hour, etc. Maxing at 100% at just under three hours. This wouldn't make a huge difference to point blank missile engagements but for long range missiles if you could track them on the way in, it would make a difference. It would be a bigger difference ship to ship though.
Although if this tracking bonus instead became a way to offset a tracking speed penalty, rather than an actual bonus, it would only affect situations where you are suffering a tracking penalty and therefore would generally be much more useful in terms of anti-missile than anti-ship. In that case, it could be done in a more linear way. Perhaps along the lines of Erik's suggestion using 5 second increments. Maybe 2% per 5 seconds. That means a 10% reduction in the tracking penalty for 25 seconds and a 24% reduction in penalty if you track them for a minute. How does that sound?
Steve
If you offset the tracking speed penalty (by this, I presume you mean the penalty the speed of the missile gives you?) maybe cap it at something based on the sensor rig. If you've got a low-tech sensor, no amount of time past a certain point is going to make it easier to hit. Though you might need a new tech line for this, maybe. Maybe a function of sensor strength. That way, higher tech sensors provide a better long term aiming bonus. Easiest I can see would be to limit the time bonus to the number of seconds equal to the sensor strength.
Weber always had his Manticorans tracking enemies on passives, or actives for long times and that giving them almost a 100% chance to hit. I'd not like to see that great of a bonus, but something to offset those c-missiles at max tech.
As for ships, if the best bonus you can hope for is to negate their speed penalties for you, and if that takes a long time where you are not firing, wouldn't that offset the bonus? Shoot now at a lower chance to hit, or hold fire until you have a better shot. Unless you are meaning firing will continue unabated, but as the combat progresses, the ship gets better at hitting the opponent. That I can see. That would be like tracer fire almost. I think both Charlie and I are thinking you'd not be firing while you are firming up your targeting.
There was another thought I had in here... but it disappeared. If it comes back, I'll add it.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 07, 2008, 12:14:51 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
If you offset the tracking speed penalty (by this, I presume you mean the penalty the speed of the missile gives you?) maybe cap it at something based on the sensor rig. If you've got a low-tech sensor, no amount of time past a certain point is going to make it easier to hit. Though you might need a new tech line for this, maybe. Maybe a function of sensor strength. That way, higher tech sensors provide a better long term aiming bonus. Easiest I can see would be to limit the time bonus to the number of seconds equal to the sensor strength. Weber always had his Manticorans tracking enemies on passives, or actives for long times and that giving them almost a 100% chance to hit. I'd not like to see that great of a bonus, but something to offset those c-missiles at max tech.Another good idea. The new tech line for fire control systems would be the maximum benefit you could get from tracking over time.
Quote
As for ships, if the best bonus you can hope for is to negate their speed penalties for you, and if that takes a long time where you are not firing, wouldn't that offset the bonus? Shoot now at a lower chance to hit, or hold fire until you have a better shot. Unless you are meaning firing will continue unabated, but as the combat progresses, the ship gets better at hitting the opponent. That I can see. That would be like tracer fire almost. I think both Charlie and I are thinking you'd not be firing while you are firming up your targeting.I think tracking would firm up during the battle, just like in a big-gun naval battle where the accuracy improved as the battle progressed. Of course, EW effects might improve too but that is for another day
So the combination of ideas gives us an ability for fire control systems to offset a tracking-speed penalty if they can observe the target over time. The ability for the fire control to do that would be limited by a new tech line for fire control system. This will generally aid anti-missile combat more than anti-ship combat because it is much more likely that fire controls will suffer a tracking-speed penalty against missiles than against ships? Actual numbers yet to be determined but does that sum up the general idea?
Steve
Post by: Erik L on November 07, 2008, 12:33:52 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
So the combination of ideas gives us an ability for fire control systems to offset a tracking-speed penalty if they can observe the target over time. The ability for the fire control to do that would be limited by a new tech line for fire control system. This will generally aid anti-missile combat more than anti-ship combat because it is much more likely that fire controls will suffer a tracking-speed penalty against missiles than against ships? Actual numbers yet to be determined but does that sum up the general idea?
Steve
I think that sums it up. Ships are not going to be nearing c in flight, so missiles will always have a advantage.
Off the cuff designs... 8100 ton cruiser with max tech has a speed of 15,432km/s. The installed FC has a tracking speed of 80,000 km/s while the main gun (80cm Far Gamma Laser) has a tracking speed of 20,000km/s. So right there, if our time bonus is just negating the speed advantage, our exisiting FC installations won't gain anything on a ship. On a missile, they will.
On the smaller end of the ship scale, a 1400 ton parasite clocks in at 35,714 km/s. The installed FC of the cruiser will still handle that, especially, if we gear our turrets that way.
On the smallest end, a 280 ton fighter hits 53,571km/s. Still within reach of our FC and turrets.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 07, 2008, 08:10:56 AM
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 07, 2008, 12:56:37 PM
Brian
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 07, 2008, 03:11:39 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
You might want to consider having the better to hit apply over and above the weapons base tracking speed. If the base tracking speed of the weapon is worse than the fire control tracking speed have it use the % improvement based on the weapons tracking. This would help non turreted weapons but at approximately 1/3-1/4 the bonus that the fire control would get.The weapon tracking is a physical limitation on its ability rather than one based on electronics and software. If the ship can't turn fast enough or the turret rotate fast enough then being able to see the threat coming for longer isn't as useful. With software, it can work out a better targeting solution. I know this is stretching things a little because the game doesn't model turning rates, etc but its the principle. Anti-missile beam weapons are realistically going to have to be in turrets, with the possible exception of railguns. Easing the penalty suffered by railguns (which can't use turrets) would make them a very good anti-missile weapon.
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 07, 2008, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Where I am coming from is that with the extended time to track also comes an extended time to bring the ship around to fire on the predicted point better. This will not be as good as having a turret to help with the tracking speed but it should give some advantageQuote from: "Brian"You might want to consider having the better to hit apply over and above the weapons base tracking speed. If the base tracking speed of the weapon is worse than the fire control tracking speed have it use the % improvement based on the weapons tracking. This would help non turreted weapons but at approximately 1/3-1/4 the bonus that the fire control would get.The weapon tracking is a physical limitation on its ability rather than one based on electronics and software. If the ship can't turn fast enough or the turret rotate fast enough then being able to see the threat coming for longer isn't as useful. With software, it can work out a better targeting solution. I know this is stretching things a little because the game doesn't model turning rates, etc but its the principle. Anti-missile beam weapons are realistically going to have to be in turrets, with the possible exception of railguns. Easing the penalty suffered by railguns (which can't use turrets) would make them a very good anti-missile weapon.
Steve
Brian
Post by: Kurt on November 07, 2008, 06:02:32 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I'm not seeing it here (if it was ever posted), but what is the formula for calculating PD?
Max tech Fire Control has a maximum tracking speed of 80,000km/s. Max tech missile speed is c. What are the chances of using anything other than missiles at this level?
Max Tech Fire ControlCode: [Select]50% Accuracy at Range: 700,000 km Tracking Speed: 80000 km/s
Size: 16 HTK: 1 Cost: 8400 Crew: 80
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 10%
Materials Required: 2100x Duranium 6300x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 84000RP
Max Tech Missile v1Code: [Select]Missile Size: 16.5 MSP (0.825 HS) Warhead: 67 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 300000 km/s Endurance: 10 minutes Range: 189.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 99.8333
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3000% 3k km/s 1000% 5k km/s 600% 10k km/s 300%
Materials Required: 16.75x Tritanium 83.0833x Gallicite Fuel x4375
Development Cost for Project: 9983RP
Okay, this raises a question. Should any ship be able to shoot down a missile going the speed of light? How would you detect something like that? That answer is, short of FTL sensors, you wouldn't be able to detect it until the same time as it hit, because it is pacing the light that would reveal its position.
If a ship can shoot down a missile traveling the speed of light, then why can't it shoot down a torpedo?
Kurt
Post by: Erik L on November 07, 2008, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Okay, this raises a question. Should any ship be able to shoot down a missile going the speed of light? How would you detect something like that? That answer is, short of FTL sensors, you wouldn't be able to detect it until the same time as it hit, because it is pacing the light that would reveal its position.
If a ship can shoot down a missile traveling the speed of light, then why can't it shoot down a torpedo?
Kurt
Maybe instead of missile top speed being 300,000km/s, they should be lower? Say 200,000km/s? That's still faster than any ship or fighter I've been able to design by a factor of 4 or so.
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 08, 2008, 12:25:14 AM
Brian
PS maybe have the firecontrol have to be dedicated to a single turret. no other weapon can use it's bonus.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 16, 2008, 12:44:31 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
So the combination of ideas gives us an ability for fire control systems to offset a tracking-speed penalty if they can observe the target over time. The ability for the fire control to do that would be limited by a new tech line for fire control system. This will generally aid anti-missile combat more than anti-ship combat because it is much more likely that fire controls will suffer a tracking-speed penalty against missiles than against ships? Actual numbers yet to be determined but does that sum up the general idea?I am adding this to v3.2 and starting to run into a few issues :) If so, is that a better (and simpler) approach?
I still haven't completely decided on the actual bonus but I am working on 2% per 5 seconds at the moment (24% for a minute). My only concern is that this quickly becomes a very good bonus. Necessary against missiles but possibly too harsh against ships and fighters. I might make it so that rate at which the bonus is gained quickly diminishes to offset that problem.
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 16, 2008, 05:36:22 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Did any of that make sense?
I still haven't completely decided on the actual bonus but I am working on 2% per 5 seconds at the moment (24% for a minute). My only concern is that this quickly becomes a very good bonus. Necessary against missiles but possibly too harsh against ships and fighters. I might make it so that rate at which the bonus is gained quickly diminishes to offset that problem.
Steve
Have the bonus reset between firings. This will help keep the light weapons from to much of an advantage ships and fighters. Thier first shot will be better but then the bonus goes away. If you want a heavier weapon to fire on fighters then you are going for a lot of overkill probably. Heavier, slower firing weapons will still get some bonus as thier would be more than 5 seconds between firings.
Brian
Post by: Erik L on November 16, 2008, 06:02:52 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"Did any of that make sense?
I still haven't completely decided on the actual bonus but I am working on 2% per 5 seconds at the moment (24% for a minute). My only concern is that this quickly becomes a very good bonus. Necessary against missiles but possibly too harsh against ships and fighters. I might make it so that rate at which the bonus is gained quickly diminishes to offset that problem.
Steve
Have the bonus reset between firings. This will help keep the light weapons from to much of an advantage ships and fighters. Thier first shot will be better but then the bonus goes away. If you want a heavier weapon to fire on fighters then you are going for a lot of overkill probably. Heavier, slower firing weapons will still get some bonus as thier would be more than 5 seconds between firings.
Brian
That makes sense. Faster firing weapons won't have as long to track, while the slower ones would.
Now does this apply only to beam type weapons? If it applies to missiles, then with their inherently slower fire rate, they'll get some very nice bonuses.
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 16, 2008, 06:51:50 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
That makes sense. Faster firing weapons won't have as long to track, while the slower ones would.
Now does this apply only to beam type weapons? If it applies to missiles, then with their inherently slower fire rate, they'll get some very nice bonuses.
This does not apply to missiles as they use a totally different system to determine to hit chance. Missile fire control only designates the target. The chance for a missile to hit is based on the speed and agility of the missile vs the target's speed.
Brian
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 16, 2008, 08:47:08 AM
That being said...
To use the example of an incoming 20k kps missile being engaged by PD beam weapon with tracking speed 8k kps and fire control of 12k kps. Weapon ROF is 5seconds. As pointed out, under current rules there is a to hit penalty created by the differential between the 8k of the weapon and the 20k of the missile.
The intent was this: With enough time tracking a specific target (missile, fighter, ship, etc) the penalty created by the differential reduced or eliminated. To go into an actual bonus should require new tech (maybe some type of improved fire control)
I think the 'mechanics' of how to implement may be to invasive to the existing code though.
As an example from the POV of the user, When setting the PD mode there are additional options to set.
For area defense you still set the range to start firing, but you also have the ability to set a delay. The delay gets a reduction of the differential penalty. When the PD weapon fires one of two things happens: target is eliminated and the fire control resets and searchs for a new target, or the target is not eliminated fire control continues to track and reduce teh penalty until the next chance to shoot (delay still functions).
For final defense there isn't a delay per say. You set the range for firing, but also set the range to start tracking. In a similiar manor to the area mode the more time the fire control has assigned the target to the time it fires the speed diffential penalty can be eroded. But only if the fire control actively tracks the target.
The idea for the area defense could be used for the main beam weapons fire as well.
Basicly the difference between a snap shot and taking time to aim. Give the tracking systems more time to develope a better firing solution.
I think the concept is easy to envision, but I suspect that it would be difficult to incorporate with the existing code. I suspect that it's to contrary to existing logic to implement without a wholesale rewrite.
Post by: Hawkeye on November 16, 2008, 10:08:37 AM
I started out thinking about such a bonus against fighters and then thought, "Now wait a sec, those fighters will jinx and zig-zag around all the time, throwing your carefully calculated fireing solution off".
The next thought was: "If those fighters can jinx, I sure should be able to program my missiles to do the same, perhaps reducing their range slightly."
So I am now of the opinion, while you will be able to point your ship roughly into the direction of the incoming salvo, this won´t help you a whole lot, if your weapons(mount) is not able to cope with the rather erratic manouvers, the missiles or fighters will make on the run in.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 16, 2008, 03:55:53 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
I can see the sense in that but it would be very difficult to track under the existing combat model. Targetable contacts are tracked by active sensors and program now records the length of time a contact has been continually tracked by those sensors. Fire control systems direct weapons to attack those contacts. If I reset that tracking bonus every time a weapon fired, it would reset it for all weapons. The program doesn't record how long every individual fire control tracks every individual contact because that would be an entire new layer of complexity.Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"Did any of that make sense?Have the bonus reset between firings. This will help keep the light weapons from to much of an advantage ships and fighters. Thier first shot will be better but then the bonus goes away. If you want a heavier weapon to fire on fighters then you are going for a lot of overkill probably. Heavier, slower firing weapons will still get some bonus as thier would be more than 5 seconds between firings.
I still haven't completely decided on the actual bonus but I am working on 2% per 5 seconds at the moment (24% for a minute). My only concern is that this quickly becomes a very good bonus. Necessary against missiles but possibly too harsh against ships and fighters. I might make it so that rate at which the bonus is gained quickly diminishes to offset that problem.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 16, 2008, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Steve you went a different direction that my suggestion intended. I'm OK with that, after all it is only a suggestion.Its not a bonus, it's a reduction in the penalty. The "bonus" just increases the effective tracking speed, which reduces the penalty, but if the effective tracking speed was increased beyond that needed to target the missile with no penalty, that extra tracking speed would have no effect. In other words, using the 20k missile salvo, a fire control with a tracking speed of 25k and a fire control with a normal tracking speed of 16k that had been raised to 24k by the tracking time bonus would both engage the missile with no tracking penalty. There would be no advantage or bonus gained by being able to track faster objects.
That being said...
To use the example of an incoming 20k kps missile being engaged by PD beam weapon with tracking speed 8k kps and fire control of 12k kps. Weapon ROF is 5seconds. As pointed out, under current rules there is a to hit penalty created by the differential between the 8k of the weapon and the 20k of the missile.
The intent was this: With enough time tracking a specific target (missile, fighter, ship, etc) the penalty created by the differential reduced or eliminated. To go into an actual bonus should require new tech (maybe some type of improved fire control)
Quote
I think the 'mechanics' of how to implement may be to invasive to the existing code though.That would be difficult to code as it would require keeping a record of how long every fire control is tracking every contact. At the moment, it is assumed that all ships have some type of FTL datalink and that information can be passed back and forth. If one sensor is tracking a missile than whatever it learns is passed to all other sensors. Even modern warships have these type of capabilities (well, not FTL obviously but the same in principle). I am also a little concerned this might lead to an extra layer of micromanagement during combat as you try and adjust the delays for individual ships
As an example from the POV of the user, When setting the PD mode there are additional options to set.
For area defense you still set the range to start firing, but you also have the ability to set a delay. The delay gets a reduction of the differential penalty. When the PD weapon fires one of two things happens: target is eliminated and the fire control resets and searchs for a new target, or the target is not eliminated fire control continues to track and reduce teh penalty until the next chance to shoot (delay still functions).
For final defense there isn't a delay per say. You set the range for firing, but also set the range to start tracking. In a similiar manor to the area mode the more time the fire control has assigned the target to the time it fires the speed diffential penalty can be eroded. But only if the fire control actively tracks the target.
The idea for the area defense could be used for the main beam weapons fire as well.
Basicly the difference between a snap shot and taking time to aim. Give the tracking systems more time to develope a better firing solution.
I think the concept is easy to envision, but I suspect that it would be difficult to incorporate with the existing code. I suspect that it's to contrary to existing logic to implement without a wholesale rewrite.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 16, 2008, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Hm, I´m not realy buying into the "longer tracking gives a better fire solution" thing entirely.That is a good point. I am also concerned about fire controls getting too much of an advantage against ships and fighters through a tracking time bonus, especially when that element of combat works well at the moment. How about restricting the tracking time bonus just to missiles on the basis that they will generally follow a more predictable path than manned ships or fighters, relying on speed to get them to the target. Observing a ship or fighter over time won't help a great deal in terms of what it might do next but tracking a missile over time will give tracking computers a better idea of when to fire. The thread was begun because of a concern over maximum missile speeds so this would address the primary concern while avoiding any issues with the anti-ship and anti-fighter combat model
I started out thinking about such a bonus against fighters and then thought, "Now wait a sec, those fighters will jinx and zig-zag around all the time, throwing your carefully calculated fireing solution off".
The next thought was: "If those fighters can jinx, I sure should be able to program my missiles to do the same, perhaps reducing their range slightly."
So I am now of the opinion, while you will be able to point your ship roughly into the direction of the incoming salvo, this won´t help you a whole lot, if your weapons(mount) is not able to cope with the rather erratic manouvers, the missiles or fighters will make on the run in.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on November 16, 2008, 04:24:54 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Hawkeye"Hm, I´m not realy buying into the "longer tracking gives a better fire solution" thing entirely.That is a good point. I am also concerned about fire controls getting too much of an advantage against ships and fighters through a tracking time bonus, especially when that element of combat works well at the moment. How about restricting the tracking time bonus just to missiles on the basis that they will generally follow a more predictable path than manned ships or fighters, relying on speed to get them to the target. Observing a ship or fighter over time won't help a great deal in terms of what it might do next but tracking a missile over time will give tracking computers a better idea of when to fire. The thread was begun because of a concern over maximum missile speeds so this would address the primary concern while avoiding any issues with the anti-ship and anti-fighter combat model
I started out thinking about such a bonus against fighters and then thought, "Now wait a sec, those fighters will jinx and zig-zag around all the time, throwing your carefully calculated fireing solution off".
The next thought was: "If those fighters can jinx, I sure should be able to program my missiles to do the same, perhaps reducing their range slightly."
So I am now of the opinion, while you will be able to point your ship roughly into the direction of the incoming salvo, this won´t help you a whole lot, if your weapons(mount) is not able to cope with the rather erratic manouvers, the missiles or fighters will make on the run in.
Steve
That works for me. You've already got EM (Erratic Maneuvers) simulated on missiles with agility I think.
Or not. Agility only affects the to-hit of the missile. Maybe (and this is going back to making missiles harder to hit) also have Agility affect the missile's being hit. Higher agility missiles jink around more.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 16, 2008, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
High agility missiles aren't harder to hit, they are just better at hitting fast moving targets. Or to use a real world analogy, a short-range air to air missile can make radical turns to chase its target but for most of the way to that target it follows a straight-line path. I could add some code to create jinking missiles but in most (maybe all) cases, higher speed would be preferable as it also makes a missile harder to hit and gets it to the target faster, allowing less time for defensive fire. It could be a lot of work for something that would be hardly ever used and it would complicate the math when the player is trying to visualize to hit chances.Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"That is a good point. I am also concerned about fire controls getting too much of an advantage against ships and fighters through a tracking time bonus, especially when that element of combat works well at the moment. How about restricting the tracking time bonus just to missiles on the basis that they will generally follow a more predictable path than manned ships or fighters, relying on speed to get them to the target. Observing a ship or fighter over time won't help a great deal in terms of what it might do next but tracking a missile over time will give tracking computers a better idea of when to fire. The thread was begun because of a concern over maximum missile speeds so this would address the primary concern while avoiding any issues with the anti-ship and anti-fighter combat modelThat works for me. You've already got EM (Erratic Maneuvers) simulated on missiles with agility I think.
Or not. Agility only affects the to-hit of the missile. Maybe (and this is going back to making missiles harder to hit) also have Agility affect the missile's being hit. Higher agility missiles jink around more.
Steve
Post by: jfelten on January 08, 2009, 08:46:47 AM
I'm not sure I follow the tracking speed logic. If something is moving directly towards you, there is no apparent movement to track. If it was turning or jinking so as to not come straight in, there would be apparent movement to track, but for something moving near c, the amount of energy need to alter its course would be immense. Given the angle of approach you can calculate the apparent movement.
I also don't follow why 5 seconds has anything to do with beam weapons range. A laser fired will be moving through space at c the same as a missile moving at c. Its range is infinite. The question is how much it will spread out and loose energy density over distance. A rail/gauss gun projectile in space would have infinite range and would not loose hitting power over distance. Their only disadvantage vs a missile is they are unguided so can't home in on a target. They would not have less range.
Post by: Father Tim on January 08, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Barring FTL sensors, something moving at c (or near c since a physical object couldn't move at c unless using different physics) could not be tracked/targeted. The best you could do is throw things in its way if you thought it was coming and knew the general direction. Even a grain of sand would do tremendous damage if hit by something moving c (e=mcc and all that, and c is really big). Then there is also the time dilation problem for the missile's electronics.
The miracle of modern Trans-Newtonian Elements (aka Aurora science) ignores relativistic physics, thus ships and missiles can be tracked. Steve tries to keep things belowthe speed of light, but it is possible to tweak a superhigh tech design to 300,000 km/s or above.
Quote from: "jfelten"
I'm not sure I follow the tracking speed logic. If something is moving directly towards you, there is no apparent movement to track. If it was turning or jinking so as to not come straight in, there would be apparent movement to track, but for something moving near c, the amount of energy need to alter its course would be immense. Given the angle of approach you can calculate the apparent movement.
You're approaching the logic backwards. Steve wanted the ability to track and/or intercept missiles, therefore they jink or turn or whatever, causing targetting difficulties. And since relativistic physiscs are ignored, Aurora missiles near light speed are as maneuverable (if not mroe so) as subsonic chemical-fueled missiles in atmosphere.
Quote from: "jfelten"
I also don't follow why 5 seconds has anything to do with beam weapons range. A laser fired will be moving through space at c the same as a missile moving at c. Its range is infinite. The question is how much it will spread out and loose energy density over distance. A rail/gauss gun projectile in space would have infinite range and would not loose hitting power over distance. Their only disadvantage vs a missile is they are unguided so can't home in on a target. They would not have less range.
The shortest 'turn' in Aurora is five seconds, therefore a non-missile weapon which requires more than five seconds to hit its target must be tracked over multiple 'combat turns', adding immense programming complexity that can easily be ignored by preventing the situation in the first place.
'Range' in Aurora means "the maximum distance at which the weapon is dangerous" and is determined by the chance to hit the broad side of a space barn rather than the physical distance the projectile will travel. Every combat game with lasers I've ever played has treated the issue this same way - yes the laser wil go on forever unless it hits something, but the chance of deliberately hitting something is limited to some arbitrary range.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 08, 2009, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
'Range' in Aurora means "the maximum distance at which the weapon is dangerous" and is determined by the chance to hit the broad side of a space barn rather than the physical distance the projectile will travel. Every combat game with lasers I've ever played has treated the issue this same way - yes the laser wil go on forever unless it hits something, but the chance of deliberately hitting something is limited to some arbitrary range.
I absolutely agree.
There is rage, and then there is effective range.
Your average rifle bullet will easily fly 1.5 to 2 km, your chance to hit anything at that range is so small, we can say it is zero.
Imagine your megalaser with a range of 10 lightseconds fires at a target (a spaceship in this case) 10 lightsecond away and which is capable of an acceleration of 10g. Now, if this ship is unaware of any hostiles around and flies in a staight line, you can hit it, no problem.
If you are in a combat situation, however, this ship will perform random manouvers at those 10g. If I haven´t got my math wrong (nothing unheard of, I have to admit
), your target can be anywhere within a sphere with r = 10sec x 50m/sec average speed = 500m or a diameter of 1 km.Looking at the size of the ships in aurora, those ships aren´t exactly deathstars in size, more like modern navy frigats and destroyers or cruisers, so missing by 100m might clip the edge of your target, if you´re very lucky, but it´s much (muuuuuuuch) more likely you totally miss.
And lets not forget, 10g is pretty slow, from what I gather in aurora.
That´s why only homing weapons have a chance to hit at those or longer ranges (at least, that´s how I always thought of it)
Post by: jfelten on January 09, 2009, 04:09:59 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "Father Tim"
'Range' in Aurora means "the maximum distance at which the weapon is dangerous" and is determined by the chance to hit the broad side of a space barn rather than the physical distance the projectile will travel. Every combat game with lasers I've ever played has treated the issue this same way - yes the laser wil go on forever unless it hits something, but the chance of deliberately hitting something is limited to some arbitrary range.
I absolutely agree.
There is rage, and then there is effective range.
Your average rifle bullet will easily fly 1.5 to 2 km, your chance to hit anything at that range is so small, we can say it is zero.
Imagine your megalaser with a range of 10 lightseconds fires at a target (a spaceship in this case) 10 lightsecond away and which is capable of an acceleration of 10g. Now, if this ship is unaware of any hostiles around and flies in a staight line, you can hit it, no problem.
If you are in a combat situation, however, this ship will perform random manouvers at those 10g. If I haven´t got my math wrong (nothing unheard of, I have to admit :) ), your target can be anywhere within a sphere with r = 10sec x 50m/sec average speed = 500m or a diameter of 1 km.
Looking at the size of the ships in aurora, those ships aren´t exactly deathstars in size, more like modern navy frigats and destroyers or cruisers, so missing by 100m might clip the edge of your target, if you´re very lucky, but it´s much (muuuuuuuch) more likely you totally miss.
And lets not forget, 10g is pretty slow, from what I gather in aurora.
That´s why only homing weapons have a chance to hit at those or longer ranges (at least, that´s how I always thought of it)
This is all hand waiving since the game isn't based on anything quantifiable. Saying a laser has an effective range of 700,000 Km is just as much fantasy as saying it has an effective range of 7 billion Km. I appreciate that Steve has scaled things for the real universe (well, at least our solar system since we don't have a lot of other examples to consider) but the range of weapons is just made up in the interest of playability.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 09, 2009, 10:07:33 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "Hawkeye"Quote from: "Father Tim"
'Range' in Aurora means "the maximum distance at which the weapon is dangerous" and is determined by the chance to hit the broad side of a space barn rather than the physical distance the projectile will travel. Every combat game with lasers I've ever played has treated the issue this same way - yes the laser wil go on forever unless it hits something, but the chance of deliberately hitting something is limited to some arbitrary range.
I absolutely agree.
There is rage, and then there is effective range.
Your average rifle bullet will easily fly 1.5 to 2 km, your chance to hit anything at that range is so small, we can say it is zero.
Imagine your megalaser with a range of 10 lightseconds fires at a target (a spaceship in this case) 10 lightsecond away and which is capable of an acceleration of 10g. Now, if this ship is unaware of any hostiles around and flies in a staight line, you can hit it, no problem.
If you are in a combat situation, however, this ship will perform random manouvers at those 10g. If I haven´t got my math wrong (nothing unheard of, I have to admit
Looking at the size of the ships in aurora, those ships aren´t exactly deathstars in size, more like modern navy frigats and destroyers or cruisers, so missing by 100m might clip the edge of your target, if you´re very lucky, but it´s much (muuuuuuuch) more likely you totally miss.
And lets not forget, 10g is pretty slow, from what I gather in aurora.
That´s why only homing weapons have a chance to hit at those or longer ranges (at least, that´s how I always thought of it)
This is all hand waiving since the game isn't based on anything quantifiable. Saying a laser has an effective range of 700,000 Km is just as much fantasy as saying it has an effective range of 7 billion Km. I appreciate that Steve has scaled things for the real universe (well, at least our solar system since we don't have a lot of other examples to consider) but the range of weapons is just made up in the interest of playability.
While this is, of course, correct, the term "effective range" is, as far as I know, a clear defined term in the military.
Range is , how far your projectile/beam/whatever flies
Effective Range is, at what range you have a chance to hit anything.
Look at it another way.
Around 1900 A.D. the typical battlship carried 4x12" guns in two turrets.
Those guns had a maximum range of easyly 10km+
The chance to hit anything at that range, however, was pretty much nil (Tsushima comes to mind, where basicly the entire japanese fleet made a 180° turn on a single spot some 8.000m from the russians, who pretty much had crossed their T (the wet dream of any admiral in the gunship aera) and the russians didn´t achieve a single hit)
What I wanted to point out above (in my first post) is: The chance to hit anything with a direct fire weapon at a range larger than 5 lightseconds is so infinitessimal (sp?) small, it´s not realy worth to invest a lot of programming time
Post by: jfelten on January 09, 2009, 11:20:01 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
What I wanted to point out above (in my first post) is: The chance to hit anything with a direct fire weapon at a range larger than 5 light-seconds is so infinitesimally small, it´s not really worth to invest a lot of programming time
I'm just saying it is all arbitrary. By any rational estimate hitting anything the size of a ship moving that fast at 1 light-second (very roughly the distance to the moon) by any technology we can imagine is virtually impossible. But this is a game and game play usually has to trump physics. I don't know what the ideal range of beam weapons should be, but IMO they shouldn't be an arbitrary range based on the time keeping system. Plus we already have the physics problem of near c missiles. They would hit you at almost the same instant you "saw" them even if launched from extreme distances. So it isn't like the game is being 100% faithful to known physics as is.
Post by: jfelten on January 21, 2009, 07:45:43 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "jfelten"I'm not sure I follow the tracking speed logic. If something is moving directly towards you, there is no apparent movement to track. If it was turning or jinking so as to not come straight in, there would be apparent movement to track, but for something moving near c, the amount of energy need to alter its course would be immense. Given the angle of approach you can calculate the apparent movement.
You're approaching the logic backwards. Steve wanted the ability to track and/or intercept missiles, therefore they jink or turn or whatever, causing targetting difficulties. And since relativistic physiscs are ignored, Aurora missiles near light speed are as maneuverable (if not mroe so) as subsonic chemical-fueled missiles in atmosphere.
Well, no matter how much they jink and turn, they still have to at some point of their flight approach the target in which case tracking their apparent movement is going to be less than their actual velocity. If a missile is coming towards me at 300,000km/s, my physical weapon barrel (or whatever) does not have to move at 300,000km/s to remain pointed at the missile. Of course if a missile was actually coming straight at me at 300,000km/s I couldn't see it before it hit barring FTL sensors, so I think the idea of missiles moving at or near c is a bad idea from a suspension of disbelief perspective (again, barring FTL sensors), especially if it is not necessary for game play reasons.
However all this gets sorted out, the main thing I want to campaign for here is a viable "beam" based anti-missile defense so players/NPR's can forgo missiles and still have some chance vs a missile opponent. Perhaps some sort of low power continuous fire mode for beam weapons firing in PD mode. They throw out a continuous barrage of anti-missile fire so are not relying on being able to precisely track the incoming missile with a single shot. Sort of like the current vulcan phalanx system or WWII flak. Perhaps the game needs dedicated anti-missile systems. If missiles became the biggest threat, scientists would try to devise a defensive system. Something balanced enough so there would be no single winning strategy.
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 21, 2009, 08:37:46 AM
brian
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 21, 2009, 11:48:46 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
There is already a weapon system that is for point defense. The Gauss Cannon. It only does 1 point of damage, has a very limited range, but can get up to 10 shots every 5 seconds. It can also be mounted in a turret. With equal tech levels it will take between 2-3 shots to hit an incomming missile.
brian
I'd like to add to this.
GC's is fast turrets and supported by fast fire controls can play merry havoc on missile salvo's. It costs quite a bit of research and mass but is possible. I've found that range is less important for this system, when used for PD, than rate of fire.
Kurt and I had a discussion on the subject (albet in v3.1) back in Oct/Nov IIRC. His Russians learned the hard way that GC's not in fast turrets with fast FC are fairly ineffective.
Post by: jfelten on January 22, 2009, 04:50:53 AM
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 22, 2009, 05:42:44 AM
In this scenario the nebula fleet did not have any dedicated anti-missile platforms. It did have huge numbers of light railguns however, and they actually do a reasonable job as point defence. This is because for each railgun you get 4 shots, but thier tracking speed is about 1/4th that of the real pd weapons. Net effect is one railgun is about as effective as 1 laser or meson in a turret with good fire control to back it up. The reason for the massive number of light railguns, and not heavier railguns is that in thier home nebula the maximum range for their fire control was only about 70,000k. This meant that a 12cm railgun actually could fire as far as the firecontrol could see in the nebula.
Brian
P.S. When I say roughyly equal build points, that includes the cost of the missiles. Missile ships are usually somewhat cheaper than beam armed ships, but the missiles make them slightly more expensive on average.
Post by: jfelten on January 22, 2009, 06:05:43 AM
The nebula race was unable to create a longer range fire control?
Do you have time to post the ship designs?
Certainly the cost of the missiles should be included when judging fleet cost.
Thanks
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 22, 2009, 08:05:15 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
It is going to take me a lot of time to get enough experience with the combat system to form solid conclusions. So for now I'll ask you. In your opinion/experience, given equal investments in research points and resources, can a non-missile fleet mount enough effective PD to survive a missile fleet's missile strike and still have enough direct fire weapons and close with them to have a fair chance of winning a battle? I can see the non-missile fleet will start at a disadvantage. The missile fleet gets to hit first. And unless the missile fleet is defending a fixed location, the beam fleet will have to dedicate enough technology and additional resources to be faster than the missile fleet else they'll never be able to close to engage. Otherwise the missile fleet would be able to do what damage they can then retreat to reload. Obviously there are a lot of variables and no such thing as perfect balance, but is it close?
That's the question. The answer is dependent on how you play the missile races and the beam races.
As things stand in v3.2, my short term answer is yes. But long term probably no. Even the short term is dependent on how you start the game.
For the short term game the beam race must govern the research with the assumption that missiles exist and must be countered. To this end tech for PD must be advanced first above propulsion. (beam tracking speed and turret tracking speed). Propulsion shouldn't be ignored since ship speed is a major factor in initiative. Sensors should not be ingnored either, you have to be able to detect the incoming missiles far enough out to with passives so that you can fireup your actives in time.
Personally I have a preference for GC's with ROF of at least 4 in fast turrets with fast fire control set for 10k final defense fire. Keep a tight (sub 10k) formation and missile salvos have too be quite large to over saturate. The main counter, other than faster missiles, to this defense is the box launcher.
Never use GC's for area defense. If you have the research funds available turret mounted 10cm lasers with capacitor 3(for a 5sec cyclic rate) work well for an area defense layer.
This has worked quite well for me in the early game. The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds. For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.
The most effective way, that I've found, to deploy PD turrets is a minimum of one per combat ship. Light units have singles while the largest hulls, ideally, mount quads with the units in between having dual and triple turrets. The exception being dedicated escorts having the next size up of the GC turret as well as the area defense turret(s).
Of course if your primary enemy is a beam not missile race you could be in trouble with too much mass dedicated to missile defense.
Post by: jfelten on January 22, 2009, 11:02:28 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
For the short term game the beam race must govern the research with the assumption that missiles exist and must be countered. To this end tech for PD must be advanced first above propulsion. (beam tracking speed and turret tracking speed). Propulsion shouldn't be ignored since ship speed is a major factor in initiative. Sensors should not be ingnored either, you have to be able to detect the incoming missiles far enough out to with passives so that you can fireup your actives in time.
As I understand it, if the weapons is turreted then the turret rotation speed is compared to the missile speed. But if not turreted then the ship's speed is compared to the missile speed. Since it is easier to increase the turret speed, turrets are the way to go with PD weapons?
Which passives do you use for detecting missiles? Thermal to detect their drives? And how much range do you need?
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Never use GC's for area defense. If you have the research funds available turret mounted 10cm lasers with capacitor 3(for a 5sec cyclic rate) work well for an area defense layer.
Why never use GC's for area defense?
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
This has worked quite well for me in the early game. The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds. For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.
Can't you just keep cranking up the turret speed at the cost of additional mass?
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
[
The most effective way, that I've found, to deploy PD turrets is a minimum of one per combat ship. Light units have singles while the largest hulls, ideally, mount quads with the units in between having dual and triple turrets. The exception being dedicated escorts having the next size up of the GC turret as well as the area defense turret(s)./quote]
I am concerned about the ability of missile ships to empty their magazines while all the missiles loiter until together in one huge swarm. That could easily total hundreds of missiles and I can't see mounting enough PD shots to thin such a missile swarm out much. Why use box launchers when you can do the missile swarm trick? The missile ships can just run away while building the missile swarm. Even if your beam ships are faster by sacrificing extra tonnage to engines, they won't be faster enough to get within beam range before all the missiles have been launched as far as I can tell.Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Of course if your primary enemy is a beam not missile race you could be in trouble with too much mass dedicated to missile defense.
Can't the PDF weapons just shoot at the enemy ships then?
Post by: Erik L on January 22, 2009, 11:54:46 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"This has worked quite well for me in the early game. The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds. For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.
Can't you just keep cranking up the turret speed at the cost of additional mass?
At some point the turret mass will no longer be cost effective. Consider the following.
Code: [Select]
Quad 12cm C4 Far X-Ray Laser Turret
Damage Output 4x4 Rate of Fire: 5 seconds Range Modifier: 8
Max Range 320,000 km Turret Size: 22 Armour: 0 Turret HTK: 8
Power Requirement: 16 Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 16
Cost: 286 Crew: 160
Maximum Tracking Speed: 32000km/sCode: [Select]
Quad Gauss Cannon R5-100 Turret
Damage Output 1x20 Rate of Fire: 5 seconds Range Modifier: 5
Max Range 50,000 km Turret Size: 32 Armour: 0 Turret HTK: 8
Cost: 280 Crew: 96
Maximum Tracking Speed: 32000km/sLaser is 22 hull, Gauss Cannon is 32 hull. Both have a rotational speed of 32,000 km/s (based on the max fire control).For 32 hull, I can mount 16 of these.
Code: [Select]
Maximum Missile Size: 2 Rate of Fire: 10 seconds
Launcher Size: 2 Launcher HTK: 1
Cost Per Launcher: 22 Crew Per Launcher: 2016 shots to 4. Okay, comparing RoF, 16 shots to 8. The laser needs a power plant, so assume another 5 hull for that. 27 hull for the laser/power situation. Still 13 AM-Missile launchers for the size. Of course, you need magazines. How about this
Code: [Select]
Maximum Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire: 5 seconds
Launcher Size: 1 Launcher HTK: 0
Cost Per Launcher: 16.5 Crew Per Launcher: 10 Put in these missiles.
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 2 MSP (0.1 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 82
Speed: 32000 km/s Endurance: 94 minutes Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.1167
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2624% 3k km/s 820% 5k km/s 524.8% 10k km/s 262.4%You'll notice the range is over 500 times the max range of the laser, and 3600 times the range of the GC. Of course, this is also assuming you have the electronics to back this up. Firing at the following missiles Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 8 MSP (0.4 HS) Warhead: 48 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 32000 km/s Endurance: 94 minutes Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 16.2667
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 320% 3k km/s 100% 5k km/s 64% 10k km/s 32% You are still talking about an 82% chance to hit.Same RoF as the turrets. And you can cram in 20-30 times the number in the same space. Assuming you are going to replace the GC turret with missiles. Go 20 AM-launchers, and 4 magazines. 200 AM missiles for defense in that scenario.
Of course, neither the laser or the GC will run out of ammo.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 22, 2009, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
In my opinion yes. But you also need a fire control with sufficient speed as well.Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"For the short term game the beam race must govern the research with the assumption that missiles exist and must be countered. To this end tech for PD must be advanced first above propulsion. (beam tracking speed and turret tracking speed). Propulsion shouldn't be ignored since ship speed is a major factor in initiative. Sensors should not be ingnored either, you have to be able to detect the incoming missiles far enough out to with passives so that you can fireup your actives in time.
As I understand it, if the weapons is turreted then the turret rotation speed is compared to the missile speed. But if not turreted then the ship's speed is compared to the missile speed. Since it is easier to increase the turret speed, turrets are the way to go with PD weapons?
Quote
Which passives do you use for detecting missiles? Thermal to detect their drives? And how much range do you need?Thermals. The tricky part is having them sensative enough to detect the missiles in time. A fleet scout with a large array is usually my ideal choice.
Quote
Range. Even at max GC's don't really reach past point blank range.Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Never use GC's for area defense. If you have the research funds available turret mounted 10cm lasers with capacitor 3(for a 5sec cyclic rate) work well for an area defense layer.
Why never use GC's for area defense?
Quote
If you don't have a corrisponding fire control it's just a waste of mass.Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"This has worked quite well for me in the early game. The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds. For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.
Can't you just keep cranking up the turret speed at the cost of additional mass?
Quote
That's a valid concern. How you deal with it is vary situational. Who saw whom first? Who as the speed advantage? What's the range? Is the beam race relying on just final defense turrets or a layered set of area turrets as well? Is the battle mobile or pinned to a strategic location? What is the missile races stores of missile like? etc etc etcQuote from: "Charlie Beeler"The most effective way, that I've found, to deploy PD turrets is a minimum of one per combat ship. Light units have singles while the largest hulls, ideally, mount quads with the units in between having dual and triple turrets. The exception being dedicated escorts having the next size up of the GC turret as well as the area defense turret(s).
I am concerned about the ability of missile ships to empty their magazines while all the missiles loiter until together in one huge swarm. That could easily total hundreds of missiles and I can't see mounting enough PD shots to thin such a missile swarm out much. Why use box launchers when you can do the missile swarm trick? The missile ships can just run away while building the missile swarm. Even if your beam ships are faster by sacrificing extra tonnage to engines, they won't be faster enough to get within beam range before all the missiles have been launched as far as I can tell.
Missile loiter can be a 2 edged weapon. It does allow for large waves. It can mask where they were launched from. But if the launcher has too small a magazine capacity they can be left vulnerable.
Quote
Only if you can get close enough.Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Of course if your primary enemy is a beam not missile race you could be in trouble with too much mass dedicated to missile defense.
Can't the PDF weapons just shoot at the enemy ships then?
Another, albet expensive, route for a beam race is fighters. Fast fighters.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 22, 2009, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Don't overlook that the above GC turret has 20 shots at a single salvo. My preference is too not add the extra range to the GC and leave it for final defensive fire. That laser turret makes a good area defense system. If the ship(s) are able to force the missiles into a stern chase the lasers could get 2 or more shots at the incoming salvos depending of the ships speed. As pointed out, active sensors that can see the missiles and a fire control that is up to the job are neccessary or it's just wasted mass.Quote from: "jfelten"Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"This has worked quite well for me in the early game. The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds. For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.
Can't you just keep cranking up the turret speed at the cost of additional mass?
At some point the turret mass will no longer be cost effective. Consider the following.Code: [Select]Quad 12cm C4 Far X-Ray Laser Turret
Damage Output 4x4 Rate of Fire: 5 seconds Range Modifier: 8
Max Range 320,000 km Turret Size: 22 Armour: 0 Turret HTK: 8
Power Requirement: 16 Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 16
Cost: 286 Crew: 160
Maximum Tracking Speed: 32000km/sCode: [Select]Quad Gauss Cannon R5-100 TurretLaser is 22 hull, Gauss Cannon is 32 hull. Both have a rotational speed of 32,000 km/s (based on the max fire control).
Damage Output 1x20 Rate of Fire: 5 seconds Range Modifier: 5
Max Range 50,000 km Turret Size: 32 Armour: 0 Turret HTK: 8
Cost: 280 Crew: 96
Maximum Tracking Speed: 32000km/s
For 32 hull, I can mount 16 of these.Code: [Select]Maximum Missile Size: 2 Rate of Fire: 10 seconds16 shots to 4. Okay, comparing RoF, 16 shots to 8. The laser needs a power plant, so assume another 5 hull for that. 27 hull for the laser/power situation. Still 13 AM-Missile launchers for the size. Of course, you need magazines.
Launcher Size: 2 Launcher HTK: 1
Cost Per Launcher: 22 Crew Per Launcher: 20
How about thisCode: [Select]Maximum Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire: 5 seconds
Launcher Size: 1 Launcher HTK: 0
Cost Per Launcher: 16.5 Crew Per Launcher: 10
Put in these missiles.Code: [Select]Missile Size: 2 MSP (0.1 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 82You'll notice the range is over 500 times the max range of the laser, and 3600 times the range of the GC. Of course, this is also assuming you have the electronics to back this up. Firing at the following missiles
Speed: 32000 km/s Endurance: 94 minutes Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.1167
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2624% 3k km/s 820% 5k km/s 524.8% 10k km/s 262.4%Code: [Select]Missile Size: 8 MSP (0.4 HS) Warhead: 48 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10You are still talking about an 82% chance to hit.
Speed: 32000 km/s Endurance: 94 minutes Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 16.2667
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 320% 3k km/s 100% 5k km/s 64% 10k km/s 32%
Same RoF as the turrets. And you can cram in 20-30 times the number in the same space. Assuming you are going to replace the GC turret with missiles. Go 20 AM-launchers, and 4 magazines. 200 AM missiles for defense in that scenario.
Of course, neither the laser or the GC will run out of ammo.
IMO those missiles are overkill for the defense role. Single space counter missiles are effective enough for me. You ussually can't see the incoming missiles far enough out to use all that range. Unless of course that additional space is needed for enough engine to at least match, if not gain advantage, speed with the incoming.
Post by: Erik L on January 22, 2009, 12:42:39 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Don't overlook that the above GC turret has 20 shots at a single salvo. My preference is too not add the extra range to the GC and leave it for final defensive fire. That laser turret makes a good area defense system. If the ship(s) are able to force the missiles into a stern chase the lasers could get 2 or more shots at the incoming salvos depending of the ships speed. As pointed out, active sensors that can see the missiles and a fire control that is up to the job are neccessary or it's just wasted mass.
IMO those missiles are overkill for the defense role. Single space counter missiles are effective enough for me. You ussually can't see the incoming missiles far enough out to use all that range. Unless of course that additional space is needed for enough engine to at least match, if not gain advantage, speed with the incoming.
The size 8 missiles are intended as an example of offensive missiles, not AM
20 shots at 50,000 km. Compared to 20 shots at 180,000,000 km.
I agree the GC is very well qualified for last-ditch point blank efforts, but if you want to stop the missiles from ever getting to that, you'll need a longer reach. Lasers, Railguns or countermissiles.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 22, 2009, 01:04:28 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Don't overlook that the above GC turret has 20 shots at a single salvo. My preference is too not add the extra range to the GC and leave it for final defensive fire. That laser turret makes a good area defense system. If the ship(s) are able to force the missiles into a stern chase the lasers could get 2 or more shots at the incoming salvos depending of the ships speed. As pointed out, active sensors that can see the missiles and a fire control that is up to the job are neccessary or it's just wasted mass.
IMO those missiles are overkill for the defense role. Single space counter missiles are effective enough for me. You ussually can't see the incoming missiles far enough out to use all that range. Unless of course that additional space is needed for enough engine to at least match, if not gain advantage, speed with the incoming.
The size 8 missiles are intended as an example of offensive missiles, not AM
20 shots at 50,000 km. Compared to 20 shots at 180,000,000 km.
I agree the GC is very well qualified for last-ditch point blank efforts, but if you want to stop the missiles from ever getting to that, you'll need a longer reach. Lasers, Railguns or countermissiles.
Sorry, I ment to reference the size 2 counter missile.
After the early game railguns are no longer effective for missile defense, can't be turret mounted.
I left counter missiles mostly out of my primary reply to jfelten since he was asking if beam only ships had a chance against missile ships. too that point a mix of laser turrets for ranged area defense and GC turrets for final defense are the best options I've used. But your correct, for the best layered defense counter missiles are a must.
After the early game missile races gain a huge advantage since missile speed easily out paces fire control and turret tracking speeds. At that point the beam races had better at least deployed fast counter missiles so that their ships can wade in close enough to bring the main batteries too bare.
I haven't done much with thermal reduction and cloaks yet to see if they are a viable option for beam races. I've done some thermal reduction for fighters with mixed results for ambushes.
Post by: Erik L on January 22, 2009, 02:30:07 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Sorry, I ment to reference the size 2 counter missile.
After the early game railguns are no longer effective for missile defense, can't be turret mounted.
I left counter missiles mostly out of my primary reply to jfelten since he was asking if beam only ships had a chance against missile ships. too that point a mix of laser turrets for ranged area defense and GC turrets for final defense are the best options I've used. But your correct, for the best layered defense counter missiles are a must.
After the early game missile races gain a huge advantage since missile speed easily out paces fire control and turret tracking speeds. At that point the beam races had better at least deployed fast counter missiles so that their ships can wade in close enough to bring the main batteries too bare.
I haven't done much with thermal reduction and cloaks yet to see if they are a viable option for beam races. I've done some thermal reduction for fighters with mixed results for ambushes.
The only reason I can see for size 2 missiles are for increased agility. Hmmm, here's a thought.
Combine this as a submunition
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 2 MSP (0.1 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 82
Speed: 16000 km/s Endurance: 94 minutes Range: 90.0m km
Active Sensor Strength: 1.5 Resolution: 1 Maximum Range: 15,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 4.0833
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1312% 3k km/s 410% 5k km/s 262.4% 10k km/s 131.2%Into this carrierCode: [Select]
Missile Size: 12 MSP (0.6 HS) Warhead: 0 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 10700 km/s Endurance: 281 minutes Range: 180.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 18.4665
Second Stage: AM-Sub1 x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 150000 km
Overall Endurance: 6 hours Overall Range: 270.6m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 107% 3k km/s 30% 5k km/s 21.4% 10k km/s 10.7%Yes, it is size 12. But, you've got a stand-off countermissile range of 270m km. The sub-munitions include an active sensor for tracking at the separation range. Actually, you could probably swap most of the fuel in the submunition to engine.Layer these with shorter ranged countermissiles, laser batteries for medium area defense and GC for close-in last ditch.
As for the cloak/thermal mask. If you can't see it, you can't shoot at it. That might help a beam armed fleet get within range of the missile boats.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 22, 2009, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Sorry, I ment to reference the size 2 counter missile.
After the early game railguns are no longer effective for missile defense, can't be turret mounted.
I left counter missiles mostly out of my primary reply to jfelten since he was asking if beam only ships had a chance against missile ships. too that point a mix of laser turrets for ranged area defense and GC turrets for final defense are the best options I've used. But your correct, for the best layered defense counter missiles are a must.
After the early game missile races gain a huge advantage since missile speed easily out paces fire control and turret tracking speeds. At that point the beam races had better at least deployed fast counter missiles so that their ships can wade in close enough to bring the main batteries too bare.
I haven't done much with thermal reduction and cloaks yet to see if they are a viable option for beam races. I've done some thermal reduction for fighters with mixed results for ambushes.
The only reason I can see for size 2 missiles are for increased agility. Hmmm, here's a thought.
Combine this as a submunitionCode: [Select]Missile Size: 2 MSP (0.1 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 82Into this carrier
Speed: 16000 km/s Endurance: 94 minutes Range: 90.0m km
Active Sensor Strength: 1.5 Resolution: 1 Maximum Range: 15,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 4.0833
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1312% 3k km/s 410% 5k km/s 262.4% 10k km/s 131.2%Code: [Select]Missile Size: 12 MSP (0.6 HS) Warhead: 0 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10Yes, it is size 12. But, you've got a stand-off countermissile range of 270m km. The sub-munitions include an active sensor for tracking at the separation range. Actually, you could probably swap most of the fuel in the submunition to engine.
Speed: 10700 km/s Endurance: 281 minutes Range: 180.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 18.4665
Second Stage: AM-Sub1 x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 150000 km
Overall Endurance: 6 hours Overall Range: 270.6m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 107% 3k km/s 30% 5k km/s 21.4% 10k km/s 10.7%
Layer these with shorter ranged countermissiles, laser batteries for medium area defense and GC for close-in last ditch.
As for the cloak/thermal mask. If you can't see it, you can't shoot at it. That might help a beam armed fleet get within range of the missile boats.
That's an idea to start with. Like my ad hoc designs, those have issues. :D
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 22, 2009, 03:55:57 PM
The nice thing is that it does work fairly well. Combine it with a slow speed and not having shields up and you are talking about a very hard to detect target. The down side is that once someone knows about the possibility it is not to hard to retrofit the scouts with a large enough radar to still spot you at a good distance for missiles. It will be very obvious however what you are doing.
Hope that helps you
Brian
Post by: Erik L on January 22, 2009, 04:24:52 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
I have played around with cloaking tech. Even a basic level of reduction does wonders for making it possible to get in close. This is because it changes the radar cross-section of the unit it is mounted on. The most basic level of cloak reduces the cross-section by 3/4. If someone actually has the points to reasearch this line then it will probably be more like 85% reduction. That takes a 100hs ship down to a cross-section of 15. I don't know about you but unless I know there is a threat at that size my long range radars tend to be at the 18-20hs size. The drawback is that unless you have a huge amount of reasearch to put in to the size multiplier, the cloak will eat up an incredible portion of your tonnage. For starters think of it as a fairly early generation jump dirve to get an idea.
The nice thing is that it does work fairly well. Combine it with a slow speed and not having shields up and you are talking about a very hard to detect target. The down side is that once someone knows about the possibility it is not to hard to retrofit the scouts with a large enough radar to still spot you at a good distance for missiles. It will be very obvious however what you are doing.
Hope that helps you
Brian
A good reason for dedicated ship types.
Back in the day, playing MOO2 with my roommate, he could never understand why my fleets beat his. He went for the "Enterprise" design, one ship does it all. I went for a "naval" design with dedicated carriers, escorts and scouts. He couldn't understand why or how my smaller ships were defeating his larger ones. The only time this broke down was when the fleets consisted of the death star ships.
So I am a firm believer of dedicated scouts to find those pesky stealthed ships.
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 22, 2009, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
A good reason for dedicated ship types.
Back in the day, playing MOO2 with my roommate, he could never understand why my fleets beat his. He went for the "Enterprise" design, one ship does it all. I went for a "naval" design with dedicated carriers, escorts and scouts. He couldn't understand why or how my smaller ships were defeating his larger ones. The only time this broke down was when the fleets consisted of the death star ships.
So I am a firm believer of dedicated scouts to find those pesky stealthed ships.
From everything I have seen in this game, keeping ships tightly focused does tend to work better. The only exception is if you plan on having a particular class out on extended patrols without backup. In that case they need to have a better sensor set so they don't run into trouble that they didn't even see. For actual fleet operations having a couple of scouts which have turned in thier offensive weapons for really big sensor arrays works wonders. It allows for the other ships in a fleet to keep thier sensor to a bare minimum needed for weapons control. This in turn lets you put in more weapons or defences etc. I will admit that I often equip my biggest ships a little more lavishly in the sensor department than this would indicate, but that is partially so they have some redundant systems as well.
Brian
Post by: Kurt on January 22, 2009, 07:36:29 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
It is going to take me a lot of time to get enough experience with the combat system to form solid conclusions. So for now I'll ask you. In your opinion/experience, given equal investments in research points and resources, can a non-missile fleet mount enough effective PD to survive a missile fleet's missile strike and still have enough direct fire weapons and close with them to have a fair chance of winning a battle? I can see the non-missile fleet will start at a disadvantage. The missile fleet gets to hit first. And unless the missile fleet is defending a fixed location, the beam fleet will have to dedicate enough technology and additional resources to be faster than the missile fleet else they'll never be able to close to engage. Otherwise the missile fleet would be able to do what damage they can then retreat to reload. Obviously there are a lot of variables and no such thing as perfect balance, but is it close?
I'm writing this before reading any of the other replies, so I might be repeating things. IMO, you can design point defenses effective enough to allow beam ships to close with a missile using enemy, however, given the wide range of possibilities in Aurora this statement comes with several caveats:
1. For purposes of this question I am assuming relatively equal "tech levels" and tonnages;
2. The beam only side MUST have a superior fleet speed to be able to catch the missile side;
3. The beam side must have a "mature" point defense capability, consisting of long-range anti-missile missiles coupled with long-range anti-missile sensors, and some sort of decent clsoe-in point defense system to deal with the leakers.
A system like the one described in #3 above can be overwhelmed by either box launchers or if the attacker has enough time and space to launch multple salvoes and then combine them into one large salvo. However, either of these decisions carries a risk for the attacker. If he launches his entire load he is vulnerable in the next battle even if he wins this one, or if his combined salvo isn't actually big enough to overwhelm the defenders defenses then he is in big trouble.
Kurt
Post by: jfelten on January 23, 2009, 05:01:10 AM
I'm not sure how the missile accuracy calculation works. I tried trading off engine space (speed) for agility but it seemed that more speed always resulted in better accuracy than the same amount of space dedicated to agility. I'm guessing this is because my test race has researched missile speed more than missile agility so the speed tech is better than the agility tech. But I don't know what the actual equation is. Also I'm not sure what the accuracy is vs enemy missiles. The little accuracy chart in the missile design window doesn't list that but judging by the size brackets and assuming it is linear, the chance of actually intercepting a missile that weighs relatively little would be extremely poor.
What I also realized was that in order to design good AMM's to intercept the high tech missiles of a missile centric opponent seems to require dedicating nearly as much research in to missile techs as the missile centric opponent does. So the beam centric race is going to be at a large research disadvantage. To deploy effective AMM"s they have to dedicate about as much research in to missile techs as the missile centric race (in which case they could just deploy anti ship missiles too), then they also have to heavily research their beam weapons which the missile centric race doesn't have to research. So it seems to me just looking at the surface that will put the beam race at a marked disadvantage overall. However I've not actually tried to verify this in practice and there are a lot of variables to consider.
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 23, 2009, 05:36:34 AM
Brian
Post by: jfelten on January 23, 2009, 08:20:51 AM
I didn't get to actually testing any of the designs in combat. Can a ship with shorter range missile targeting sensors use another ship's longer range missile targeting sensors to fire its AMM's?
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 23, 2009, 09:47:09 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 23, 2009, 12:13:53 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
I'm writing this before reading any of the other replies, so I might be repeating things. IMO, you can design point defenses effective enough to allow beam ships to close with a missile using enemy, however, given the wide range of possibilities in Aurora this statement comes with several caveats:As you touch on above, another point to consider is that missiles in a one-off tactical battle are a more effective weapon that they are in a campaign. If you don't care about production or resupply, then reaching a decision to fire off every missile to try and win the battle in one massive attack is a lot easier than if you are a long way from home, far from resupply or if your Empire has a general missile shortage. When you have to think about future battles, the fact that missiles are a finite resource is much more of a factor.
1. For purposes of this question I am assuming relatively equal "tech levels" and tonnages;
2. The beam only side MUST have a superior fleet speed to be able to catch the missile side;
3. The beam side must have a "mature" point defense capability, consisting of long-range anti-missile missiles coupled with long-range anti-missile sensors, and some sort of decent clsoe-in point defense system to deal with the leakers.
A system like the one described in #3 above can be overwhelmed by either box launchers or if the attacker has enough time and space to launch multple salvoes and then combine them into one large salvo. However, either of these decisions carries a risk for the attacker. If he launches his entire load he is vulnerable in the next battle even if he wins this one, or if his combined salvo isn't actually big enough to overwhelm the defenders defenses then he is in big trouble.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 23, 2009, 12:17:15 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
> You will probably need at least one dedicated ship with a really large active search system to see them at 3-4 million klicks to take full advantage of the amm range.No. It can lock its fire controls on to missiles that have been detected by another ship's active sensors, but it needs its own fire control system to guide the missiles. If you have AMM with onboard guidance, then you could potentially fire them at targets outside your onboard fire control range by using waypoints.
I didn't get to actually testing any of the designs in combat. Can a ship with shorter range missile targeting sensors use another ship's longer range missile targeting sensors to fire its AMM's?
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 23, 2009, 12:57:22 PM
I am not trying to create a game where every weapon is relatively equal and it doesn't really matter which weapon you decide to concentrate on. Different weapons are for different situations and I think its likely that for long-range warfare in deep space, missiles will be the primary weapon, just as they are in modern naval warfare. As I have mentioned before they do have a number of restrictions though in terms of logistics, nebulas, the difficulty in hitting ships close to a jump point and the fact they can be intercepted. Energy weapons all have their uses, as a main armament, for point defence, for flexibility, for instant damage to prevent the target jumping out of harm's way or for the independence from a logistical tail. The fact remains though that any race that wants to project power outside of a nebula is going to have take missiles into account, both in terms of defending against them or in using them as a primary or secondary weapon. A race that uses only missiles though will struggle as much as a race that does not use them at all.
The various weapon technologies in Aurora complement each other's abilities. They are not meant to be used in isolation and a balanced approach that includes both missiles and one or more beam weapons is probably the best approach. In my own campaign the Commonwealth has previously used beam weapons primarily for point defence. However, after running into a few problems with missiles they are now looking at designing a ship with a beam weapon main armament to complement their missile-armed warships.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on January 23, 2009, 08:56:44 PM
John