Post by: welchbloke on February 28, 2009, 05:53:22 AM
So the questions I'd like to discuss:
What size of missile do you generally use? (I'm looking at ship killers here not AMMs)
What drives your missile designs? (speed? Warhead? Endurance? Balanced Mix?)
What size of warship do you use for you missile designs? (early tech and later tech)
What do you optimise your designs for? (volume of fire? survivability? balanced design? etc)
How do you design your missile defences (layered with a mix of AMMs and GC/Mesons?)
Any other words of wisdom regarding missile warfare?
I've got some CG and DE designs from my current campaign that I'll post once I get back to my laptop.
Post by: Erik L on February 28, 2009, 12:40:10 PM
- 1 - AMM
3-4 "Light" Missile
6-8 "Standard Missile"
10-12 "Heavy Missile"
As for the ships, any size is good. A smaller ship (3-6k ton) will of course, mount fewer launchers, but there can be more of them. I usually design them with 4-6 launchers. A heavier ship will have more launchers (10+) if it is a dedicated missile design. A mixed design will usually carry the same number as a smaller ship, but will back it up with some other offensive weapon.
As for words of wisdom... There is NEVER enough magazine space.
Post by: waresky on February 28, 2009, 01:32:24 PM
Size 1 : AntiMissile Speed 18700 End 3min Warhd 1 Maneuver 42 range 3.6MkM
Size 1 : AntiShip 25600km/s end 3min Warh 3 maneuver 41 Range 4.8Mkm
Size 2 : Antiship 14400km/s End 42min Warh 6 maneuvr 14 Range 36Mkm
Size 4 : AtomicMissile: 12000km/s End 62min Warh 3 rad 48 Maneuv 20 Range 45Mkm
Size 10 : PDC and FAC(yes FAC-same as MAS italians)
PDC version: Speed 12800 End 254min Range 195Mkm Warh 4 Manevr 24 RAD90
FAC version: Speed 18600 End 5min Range 6Mkm Warh 24 Maneuvr 34 RAD24
note: my latest Anti-ship Size 1 r more speed than antimissile (obviously r old tech,am must re-design my AMM series:))..)
in my first hostile Encounter..ive lost an excellent CruiserGuidedmissile Clas-Sharnohost II...after ive kill an Battlecruiser Beamer,and 3 DDG..
my CG r lost Because enemy shoot without warning FROM planets missile base..and never i can reach the safe distance..
My CG was caught with 1 only CLE in escort duty..the CLE fall after the CG,do good job..but overwhelming from salvoes.
Never run too close an unknow planets:D it's only sage words from me.
Post by: welchbloke on February 28, 2009, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
My "standard" sizes are...1 - AMM
Anything larger than 12 is either PDC missile or "capital" missile. I look mostly for speed. Speed to catch ships and shortest flight time. Speed to degrade PD solutions. Secondary consideration is warhead strength.
3-4 "Light" Missile
6-8 "Standard Missile"
10-12 "Heavy Missile"
As for the ships, any size is good. A smaller ship (3-6k ton) will of course, mount fewer launchers, but there can be more of them. I usually design them with 4-6 launchers. A heavier ship will have more launchers (10+) if it is a dedicated missile design. A mixed design will usually carry the same number as a smaller ship, but will back it up with some other offensive weapon.
Code: [Select]
Agincourt Mod3 class Missile Cruiser 8500 tons 847 Crew 1223 BP TCS 170 TH 600 EM 240
3529 km/s Armour 1-37 Shields 8-300 Sensors 15/16/0/0 Damage Control Rating 14 PPV 30
Annual Failure Rate: 144% IFR: 2% Maintenance Capacity 360 MSP Max Repair 160 MSP
Magazine 670
Ion Engine E8 (10) Power 60 Efficiency 0.80 Signature 60 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 200,000 Litres Range 52.9 billion km (173 days at full power)
Beta R300/12 Shields (5) Total Fuel Cost 60 Litres per day
Missile Launcher 10-150 (3) Missile Size 10 Rate of Fire 150
Missile Fire Control FC160-R20/100 (1) Range 96.0m km Resolution 20
Ship Missile #4 (67) Speed: 9600 km/s End: 78.1 minutes Range: 45m km Warhead: 16 MR: 20 Size: 10
Active Search Sensor S160-R20/100 (1) GPS 3200 Range 32.0m km Resolution 20
Thermal Sensor TH15 (1) Sensitivity 15 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 15m km
Electromagnetic Sensor EM16 (1) Sensitivity 16 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 16m kmI've only designed one dedicated missile ship so far and it's based around size 10 launchers. I think I've made a series mistake there as my volume of fire is low and each salvo is essentially relying upon a 'golden BB' to avoid the PD and kill the target. It was a workable enough philosophy against the FAC using race I encountered but against a more organised and astute foe I suspect the design is hopelessly outclassed. The missiles are also far too slow and I'm going to work on a new design.I'm about to design a new class and I'll put it up for critique later.
Quote
As for words of wisdom... There is NEVER enough magazine space.I discovered this after one engagement. My CG were 'Winchester' far too quickly and the Agincourt Mod3 has an increased magazine size as a result.
Post by: welchbloke on February 28, 2009, 02:53:57 PM
Quote from: "waresky"
Never run too close an unknow planets:D it's only sage words from me.
I'll bear that in mind.
Post by: welchbloke on February 28, 2009, 03:52:55 PM
Code: [Select]
Broadsword class Missile Cruiser 9000 tons 953 Crew 1190 BP TCS 180 TH 720 EM 300
4000 km/s Armour 2-38 Shields 10-400 Sensors 5/8/0/0 Damage Control Rating 15 PPV 42
Annual Failure Rate: 129% IFR: 1.8% Maintenance Capacity 413 MSP Max Repair 160 MSP
Magazine 502
Ion Engine E8 (12) Power 60 Efficiency 0.80 Signature 60 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres Range 75.0 billion km (217 days at full power)
Gamma R400/16 Shields (5) Total Fuel Cost 80 Litres per day
Missile Launcher 06-090 (7) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 90
Missile Fire Control FC160-R20/100 (1) Range 96.0m km Resolution 20
Medium Missile #1 (83) Speed: 16000 km/s End: 39.1 minutes Range: 37.5m km Warhead: 12 MR: 10 Size: 6
Thermal Sensor TH5 (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
Electromagnetic Sensor EM8 (1) Sensitivity 8 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 8m kmThe Missile Fire Control has a far greater range than the missiles because I've used an off the shelf design from another ship.
Post by: Hawkeye on February 28, 2009, 04:58:40 PM
Some examples to make clear what I am talking about:
Missile Size: 3 MSP (0.15 HS) Warhead: 3 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.63
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 0.75x Tritanium 0.63x Gallicite Fuel x1500
Missile Size: 6 MSP (0.3 HS) Warhead: 6 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.26
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 1.5x Tritanium 1.51x Gallicite Fuel x3000
Missile Size: 12 MSP (0.6 HS) Warhead: 12 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.52
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 3x Tritanium 3.27x Gallicite Fuel x6000
Now, those three missile designs are all made using the same tech levels. They have exactely the same specs except for warhead strength.
For a doubling in size, I get a doubling in payload.
If I have space enough to mount, say, 3 size-12 launchers, I could also mount 6 size-6 launchers or 12 size-3 launchers.
While a hit by a size 12 missile will penetrate deeper into the enemy armor, getting a missile through enemy point defense with a 3-missile-salvo will be much harder than with a 12 missile salvo, so personally, I will allways prefere the smaller, more numerous launchers.
As for preferences in missile design:
1) Missile has to be faster than my own max. tracking speed, i.e. if I can build a targetting system with a max tracking speed of 12.800km/s, I am shooting for at least 16.000km missile speed.
2) Range as much possible as long as I can mount a reasonable warhead. For Fighter/FAC missiles I might go for shorter range and larger warhead.
3) Manouverability only if there is space to spare (which usually isn´t) except for AAMs, for which I try to squeeze some in.
Now to compare regular size and miniaturized launchers.
This is a design, mounting 9 standard size-3 launchers with enough magazin space for a little more than 14 salvos
Gneisenau class Missile Cruiser 5900 tons 596 Crew 846 BP TCS 118 TH 154 EM 0
2610 km/s Armour 3-29 Shields 0-0 Sensors 18/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 4 PPV 27
Annual Failure Rate: 69% IFR: 1% Maintenance Capacity 358 MSP Max Repair 96 MSP
Magazine 387
MTU Typ 44 Atomares Pulsations Triebwerk (7) Power 44 Efficiency 0.96 Signature 22 Armour 0 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres Range 47.7 billion km (211 days at full power)
Krupp ASR-Werfer 3/30 "Morgenroete" (9) Missile Size 3 Rate of Fire 30
Bosch Typ 32/50 Raketenleitsystem (1) Range 48.0m km Resolution 50
ASR-3 Zaunkoenig (129) Speed: 17600 km/s End: 42.6 minutes Range: 45m km Warhead: 3 MR: 10 Size: 3
Bosch Typ 96/50 Radarsystem (1) GPS 4800 Range 48.0m km Resolution 50
Siemens Typ 18 Wärmesensor (1) Sensitivity 18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 18m km
This ship is basicly the same cruiser, only it trades the regular launchers and magazine space for 100 box launchers and a 2nd missile targeting system. While it can only carry 100 missiles compared to the 129 of the above design, it can throw one or two realy devastating salvos at the enemy. If I scrap the 2nd targeting system, I can cram in another 10 launchers, but I think with the amount of ordanance this baby is capable of throwing at the enemy in one go, a second one is mandatory.
Gneisenau II class Missile Cruiser 5850 tons 300 Crew 776 BP TCS 117 TH 154 EM 0
2632 km/s Armour 3-28 Shields 0-0 Sensors 18/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 4 PPV 45
Annual Failure Rate: 68% IFR: 1% Maintenance Capacity 332 MSP Max Repair 96 MSP
Magazine 300
MTU Typ 44 Atomares Pulsations Triebwerk (7) Power 44 Efficiency 0.96 Signature 22 Armour 0 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres Range 48.1 billion km (211 days at full power)
Krupp ASR-Werfer Typ 3/0 "Nebelwerfer" (100) Missile Size 3 Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes MF Reload 3.7 hours
Bosch Typ 32/50 Raketenleitsystem (2) Range 48.0m km Resolution 50
ASR-3 Zaunkoenig (100) Speed: 17600 km/s End: 42.6 minutes Range: 45m km Warhead: 3 MR: 10 Size: 3
Bosch Typ 96/50 Radarsystem (1) GPS 4800 Range 48.0m km Resolution 50
Siemens Typ 18 Wärmesensor (1) Sensitivity 18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 18m km
Post by: Erik L on February 28, 2009, 06:58:59 PM
Post by: waresky on March 01, 2009, 06:27:53 AM
u have been fought some battle with ur missile Cruiser?
Because am fought 2..and ive RE-design totally my missiles.
Improve maneuvre rating..otherwise missile NEVER take hit some enemy.Trust me..
So ive check ur missile..and all have MR 10..
Hope u have tested toward someone,ive few doubt who this missile can be very effective out 1000km/Sec Ships Speed...CHECK pls.
Hope am wrong:)
Post by: welchbloke on March 01, 2009, 10:29:36 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I find even a 90second RoF on missiles is pushing the limit of "acceptable". I much much prefer 60 seconds or less. Which is how my missile doctrine usually evolves. Initial units are small and carry light missiles because of the RoF. As the recycle rate improves, larger missiles are designed (and launchers and ships) to maintain that "ideal" rate. Of course, the smaller launchers grow faster too. That is usually when I start mixing in recon and sensor warheads.So your doctrine evolves around having a high ROF (and copious magazines
) in order to saturate a defence with high speed, difficult to hit missiles with small warheads?Hawkeye, your small is better philosophy also gives a high ROF; was this a driving factor or a useful second order effect?
Post by: Hawkeye on March 01, 2009, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: "waresky"
For Hawkeye...
u have been fought some battle with ur missile Cruiser?
Because am fought 2..and ive RE-design totally my missiles.
Improve maneuvre rating..otherwise missile NEVER take hit some enemy.Trust me..
So ive check ur missile..and all have MR 10..
Hope u have tested toward someone,ive few doubt who this missile can be very effective out 1000km/Sec Ships Speed...CHECK pls.
Hope am wrong:)
Those missiles are not yet tested in combat, but simillar were.
I only get a hit rate of about 40 to 50% on ships of 2.500 km/s speed, and you are right, better MR would be nice, but that would increase the size to 4. Reducing the salvo by 25% to increase hit rate by 25% doesn´t seem to be efficient either, given that less missiles will be more vulnerable to enemy PD. I usually try to make up for low MR by increasing speed as much as possible.
Well, the future will tell. I am currently waiting for 4.0 (or perhaps 4.1) to start a new campaign, so I am only playing around atm.
Post by: Erik L on March 01, 2009, 12:27:07 PM
Code: [Select]
AAM-XII
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 2 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 58
Speed: 51200 km/s Endurance: 23 minutes Range: 72.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.5533
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2969.6% 3k km/s 986% 5k km/s 593.9% 10k km/s 297%
Materials Required: 0.5x Tritanium 1.8033x Gallicite Fuel x250
Development Cost for Project: 255RP
Code: [Select]
SSMs-XII
Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 12 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 50
Speed: 32000 km/s Endurance: 94 minutes Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.1333
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1600% 3k km/s 500% 5k km/s 320% 10k km/s 160%
Materials Required: 3x Tritanium 5.8833x Gallicite Fuel x2500
Development Cost for Project: 613RP
Code: [Select]
SSMm-XII
Missile Size: 8 MSP (0.4 HS) Warhead: 36 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 30
Speed: 32000 km/s Endurance: 94 minutes Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 13.7667
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 960% 3k km/s 300% 5k km/s 192% 10k km/s 96%
Materials Required: 9x Tritanium 8.0167x Gallicite Fuel x5000
Development Cost for Project: 1377RP
Code: [Select]
PDCM-XII
Missile Size: 24 MSP (1.2 HS) Warhead: 96 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 23
Speed: 42700 km/s Endurance: 70 minutes Range: 180.2m km
Cost Per Missile: 41.3917
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 982.1% 3k km/s 322% 5k km/s 196.4% 10k km/s 98.2%
Materials Required: 24x Tritanium 24.8167x Gallicite Fuel x15000
Development Cost for Project: 4139RP
Current fleet plans are 4 Knox class BC, 4 Saratoga class BC, and 8 Pegasus class CAE.
Code: [Select]
Knox class Battlecruiser 16000 tons 1734 Crew 11341.5 BP TCS 320 TH 120 EM 1800
6250 km/s Armour 5-56 Shields 60-300 Sensors 32/32/0/0 Damage Control Rating 124 PPV 84
Annual Failure Rate: 512% IFR: 7.1% Maintenance Capacity 1772 MSP Max Repair 1650 MSP
Flag Bridge Magazine 1444
SCAM Drive (10) Power 200 Efficiency 0.25 Signature 12 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 470,000 Litres Range 211.5 billion km (391 days at full power)
Omicron R300/15 Shields (10) Total Fuel Cost 150 Litres per day
Arbalest PD Missile Launcher (4) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 5
Avalanche Medium Missile Launcher (10) Missile Size 8 Rate of Fire 30
Arbalest PD Suite (2) Range 18.0m km Resolution 1
Avalanche Missile Suite (2) Range 216.0m km Resolution 40
AAM-XII (644) Speed: 51200 km/s End: 23.4 minutes Range: 72m km Warhead: 2 MR: 58 Size: 1
SSMm-XII (100) Speed: 32000 km/s End: 93.7 minutes Range: 180m km Warhead: 36 MR: 30 Size: 8
Active Search Sensor S300-R40/15 (1) GPS 12000 Range 120.0m km Resolution 40
Thermal Sensor TH1-32/15 (1) Sensitivity 32 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 32m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-32/15 (1) Sensitivity 32 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 32m km
ECCM-6 (4) ECM 60
Code: [Select]
Saratoga class Battlecruiser 17850 tons 2238 Crew 13940 BP TCS 357 TH 120 EM 5400
5602 km/s Armour 10-60 Shields 180-300 Sensors 32/32/0/0 Damage Control Rating 151 PPV 138
Annual Failure Rate: 2548% IFR: 35.4% Maintenance Capacity 488 MSP Max Repair 990 MSP
SCAM Drive (10) Power 200 Efficiency 0.25 Signature 12 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres Range 121.0 billion km (250 days at full power)
Omicron R300/15 Shields (30) Total Fuel Cost 450 Litres per day
40cm C10 Far X-Ray Laser (2) Range 600,000km TS: 8000 km/s Power 40-10 RM 8 ROF 20 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 35 32
60cm C10 Plasma Carronade (6) Range 600,000km TS: 8000 km/s Power 96-10 RM 1 ROF 50 96 48 32 24 19 16 13 12 10 9
FC Suite Mk 7 (4) Max Range: 600,000 km TS: 8000 km/s 98 97 95 93 92 90 88 87 85 83
Solid-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 AR-6 (4) Total Power Output 320 Armour 6 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor S300-R40/15 (1) GPS 12000 Range 120.0m km Resolution 40
Thermal Sensor TH1-32/15 (1) Sensitivity 32 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 32m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-32/15 (1) Sensitivity 32 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 32m km
ECCM-6 (4) ECM 60
Code: [Select]
Pegasus class Heavy Escort Cruiser 14600 tons 1000 Crew 15915.6 BP TCS 292 TH 72 EM 900
4109 km/s Armour 3-53 Shields 30-300 Sensors 32/32/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 74
Annual Failure Rate: 1705% IFR: 23.7% Maintenance Capacity 681 MSP Max Repair 3960 MSP
Magazine 1810
SCAM Drive (6) Power 200 Efficiency 0.25 Signature 12 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 24.7 billion km (69 days at full power)
Omicron R300/15 Shields (5) Total Fuel Cost 75 Litres per day
Quad Gauss Cannon R5-100 Turret (2x20) Range 50,000km TS: 32000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 5 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
PD FC Suite Mk 6 (2) Max Range: 600,000 km TS: 32000 km/s 98 97 95 93 92 90 88 87 85 83
Arbalest PD Missile Launcher (10) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 5
Arbalest PD Suite (2) Range 18.0m km Resolution 1
AAM-XII (1810) Speed: 51200 km/s End: 23.4 minutes Range: 72m km Warhead: 2 MR: 58 Size: 1
Active Search Sensor S300-R40/15 (1) GPS 12000 Range 120.0m km Resolution 40
Thermal Sensor TH1-32/15 (1) Sensitivity 32 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 32m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-32/15 (1) Sensitivity 32 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 32m km
ECCM-6 (2) ECM 60
Yeah, the Arbalest PD Suite is a bit light on the range compared to the PD missiles. Just haven't had time to update the suites. But, I've got 96 AAM-XII in the air every 5 seconds, and I can sustain that rate for nearly 18 minutes before running dry. Offensively, I've only got 5 minutes of missile fire. Of course, there's also the Saratogas which won't run dry.
Post by: welchbloke on March 01, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Post by: Erik L on March 01, 2009, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
These are obviously a far higher tech than my ships but I can see the design philosophy behind them. I have a question though, looking at your designs, thanks to the Pegasus, the overall fleet speed is 4109 km/s. The Knox and the Saratoga obviously have much higher speeds; did you consider designing a higher speed CAE?
I thought about it, but I was constrained by size limitations on the available shipyards. I'd either have the ability to build Pegasus class ships at the same time as the Saratogas and Knoxes, or trade off and wait for retooling.
Post by: Cassaralla on March 01, 2009, 03:34:06 PM
Counter Missiles are Size 1
Anti-Ship Missiles are Size 4 to 6
Bombardment Missiles are Size 8 to 12
PDC Missiles are Size 12 to 24
I favour speed on everything but my bombardment missiles, those usually have the biggest, dirtiest warhead I can manage for dropping on enemies heads after the Anti Ship missiles and the fleet have taken out the defences and I'm not prepared for an orbital invasion.
I'm on a trip right now so copies of my missile designs will go up once I've returned home.
Post by: sloanjh on March 01, 2009, 06:29:38 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
As I stated somewhere else, I am currently of the opinion of smaller is better as far as missiles go.
Some examples to make clear what I am talking about:
Missile Size: 3 MSP (0.15 HS) Warhead: 3 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.63
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 0.75x Tritanium 0.63x Gallicite Fuel x1500
Missile Size: 6 MSP (0.3 HS) Warhead: 6 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.26
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 1.5x Tritanium 1.51x Gallicite Fuel x3000
Missile Size: 12 MSP (0.6 HS) Warhead: 12 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.52
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 3x Tritanium 3.27x Gallicite Fuel x6000
Now, those three missile designs are all made using the same tech levels. They have exactely the same specs except for warhead strength.
For a doubling in size, I get a doubling in payload.
**SNIP**
The fact that missiles are scale-invariant (the warhead strength is proportional to the size, while the other stats are all fixed) says to me that something is broken in the missile design - there should be some overhead (e.g. the guidance package) which is constant size and would subtract off (in absolute terms) from the warhead size. For example, if a 0.5 MSP guidance package/control system were required on all missiles (that aren't just going to be buckshot), then your warhead strengths would be 2.5, 5.5, and 11.5, respectively, which makes your largest missile ~15% more efficient than your smallest (over and above the penetration effect you already mentioned). I still think there's a strong argument to be made for using a lot of small missiles to swamp point defense, it just seems that there should be some sort of fixed mass that can't be minaturized. Plus, it adds the potential for YATL (Yet Another Tech Line)
OTOH, there was talk awhile back about "brilliant pebbles", so maybe I'm underestimating the potential of minaturization.
John
Post by: Erik L on March 01, 2009, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Hawkeye"As I stated somewhere else, I am currently of the opinion of smaller is better as far as missiles go.
Some examples to make clear what I am talking about:
Missile Size: 3 MSP (0.15 HS) Warhead: 3 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.63
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 0.75x Tritanium 0.63x Gallicite Fuel x1500
Missile Size: 6 MSP (0.3 HS) Warhead: 6 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.26
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 1.5x Tritanium 1.51x Gallicite Fuel x3000
Missile Size: 12 MSP (0.6 HS) Warhead: 12 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s Endurance: 43 minutes Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.52
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 35.2% 10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required: 3x Tritanium 3.27x Gallicite Fuel x6000
Now, those three missile designs are all made using the same tech levels. They have exactely the same specs except for warhead strength.
For a doubling in size, I get a doubling in payload.
**SNIP**
The fact that missiles are scale-invariant (the warhead strength is proportional to the size, while the other stats are all fixed) says to me that something is broken in the missile design - there should be some overhead (e.g. the guidance package) which is constant size and would subtract off (in absolute terms) from the warhead size. For example, if a 0.5 MSP guidance package/control system were required on all missiles (that aren't just going to be buckshot), then your warhead strengths would be 2.5, 5.5, and 11.5, respectively, which makes your largest missile ~15% more efficient than your smallest (over and above the penetration effect you already mentioned). I still think there's a strong argument to be made for using a lot of small missiles to swamp point defense, it just seems that there should be some sort of fixed mass that can't be minaturized. Plus, it adds the potential for YATL (Yet Another Tech Line) :)
Post by: sloanjh on March 01, 2009, 07:23:31 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
All of the parameters of a missile are dependant on size allocated. You can tweak the numbers to give identical performance numbers for different sized missiles. In the examples, the larger missiles need more space dedicated to engine and fuel to maintain the same speed/endurance.
Or maybe I'm just missing your point? :-)
My point is that cutting all the parameters in half shouldn't result in a missile with exactly the same performance characteristics, and half the warhead size. Think about what happens in freighter design - what's happening in missile design is the equivalent to being allowed to put only engines, fuel, and cargo holds into a ship, without requiring a bridge. If I could (and did) do that, then halving the number of each component on the ship would result in a ship with the same speed and range, but half the cargo space. If I bridges are required on ships, however, then I've got a "fixed cost" (in HS) that I can't shrink by making the ship smaller. Now, when I halve the components on the ship, I'm not allowed to halve the bridge. This means that the halved ship is bigger than half the size of the original, which in turn means that it's slower, relatively more expensive, and shorter ranged. I picked a guidance head as the most plausible sort of fixed cost I could come up with, but that was really just meant to be an example.
This is why Steve had to reduce bridge requirements below a certain size - otherwise the full-blown starship bridge would be like an anchor in attempts to design agile small ships.
Did that make sense?
John
Post by: Erik L on March 01, 2009, 07:39:17 PM
Post by: Kurt on March 02, 2009, 12:59:37 PM
.In the 6 Powers Campaign, the offensive missile sizes range from 3 for the Japanese Long Lance missile line, to larger for the Reich and the Alliance. I can't remember the exact size for the Reich and the Alliance right now, but they are larger, and the Alliance has introduced an even larger missile lately, because they needed something bigger to fit in ECM.
Having said that, I am undecided as to the "Best" size. The Japanese have a good salvo size and ROF because of the relatively small missiles, but each missile only does 3 points of damage, so even though they launch a lot of missiles, and usually get at least a moderate number of hits, they don't do much damage.
Some things to consider here are ROF, and the balance between capability to sustain a continuing engagement vs being able to overwhelm an opponent right off the bat. The Reich Scharnhorst missile frigates use box launchers and can launch 20 missiles at once, which isn't bad for a 3,500 ton ship (approximately). In a same-size match, three of these could launch sixty missiles in one salvo at an Alliance Battlecruiser or Dreadnought, completely overwhelming its defenses and scoring multiple hits, probably enough to destroy it, or at least seriously damaging it. However, once they have launched their missiles they are nothing but targets, and are useless until they are reloaded.
Kurt
Post by: Erik L on March 02, 2009, 03:48:23 PM
As technology progresses in game, more options open up for the missiles. The same size missile can maintain the warhead space usage, but have a bigger bang. Or decrease the warhead size to include some armor and/or maneuverability.
I do like John's suggestion about a guidance package being a set size. The largest problem I see with this is that the firing ship is providing the guidance, not the missile.
If the missiles had guidance packages, I could mount X number of launchers, 1 FC Suite and then launch a salvo at target A, a salvo at target B, and one at target C. Currently if you shift targets, all in-flight salvos switch too.
Post by: welchbloke on March 02, 2009, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I think it boils down to what the individual considers an acceptable salvo size along with acceptable damage per missile. For ships it is salvo size and magazine space.
As technology progresses in game, more options open up for the missiles. The same size missile can maintain the warhead space usage, but have a bigger bang. Or decrease the warhead size to include some armor and/or maneuverability.
I do like John's suggestion about a guidance package being a set size. The largest problem I see with this is that the firing ship is providing the guidance, not the missile.
If the missiles had guidance packages, I could mount X number of launchers, 1 FC Suite and then launch a salvo at target A, a salvo at target B, and one at target C. Currently if you shift targets, all in-flight salvos switch too.
That's correct, I think of Aurora missiles as equivalent to command guided SAMs or semi-active AAMs. Both of these missiles require a guidance system of sorts to receive data and calculate any course corrections. Personally, given the advances in miniaturisation that have occured in real life, I think the guidance package would constitute a negligible portion of the missile mass. Could someone remind me how much an MSP is supposed to be in tonnes?
Post by: Erik L on March 02, 2009, 07:29:44 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
That's correct, I think of Aurora missiles as equivalent to command guided SAMs or semi-active AAMs. Both of these missiles require a guidance system of sorts to receive data and calculate any course corrections. Personally, given the advances in miniaturisation that have occured in real life, I think the guidance package would constitute a negligible portion of the missile mass. Could someone remind me how much an MSP is supposed to be in tonnes?
1/20th of a hull space or 2.5 tons.
Post by: SteveAlt on March 03, 2009, 07:56:24 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I think it boils down to what the individual considers an acceptable salvo size along with acceptable damage per missile. For ships it is salvo size and magazine space.Missiles are guided by homing in on the target painted by the parent ship's fire control systems. This requires very little space on the missile. However, you can put guidance packages on missiles so they don't need shipboard control. In this case, you wil get the economies of scale to which John was referring. Missiles with guidance packages aren't that common at the moment because they usually aren't necessary. That will likely change when I get around to adding full electronic warfare, probably in v4.1 or v4.2. I am planning to add jammers that can be used against specific fire control systems, either vs a ship or a missile, which means missiles may need their own guidance to avoid being all taken out at once by such jamming. You will also be able to detect fire controls locking on (when EW is added) so self-guiding missiles would avoid giving away the position of the firing ship.
As technology progresses in game, more options open up for the missiles. The same size missile can maintain the warhead space usage, but have a bigger bang. Or decrease the warhead size to include some armor and/or maneuverability.
I do like John's suggestion about a guidance package being a set size. The largest problem I see with this is that the firing ship is providing the guidance, not the missile.
If the missiles had guidance packages, I could mount X number of launchers, 1 FC Suite and then launch a salvo at target A, a salvo at target B, and one at target C. Currently if you shift targets, all in-flight salvos switch too.
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on March 05, 2009, 03:01:28 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Even now a missile guidance system would be no more than about 100kg even for the largest missile. I would say that the standard package could be considered a negligible part of the missile mass.Quote from: "welchbloke"That's correct, I think of Aurora missiles as equivalent to command guided SAMs or semi-active AAMs. Both of these missiles require a guidance system of sorts to receive data and calculate any course corrections. Personally, given the advances in miniaturisation that have occured in real life, I think the guidance package would constitute a negligible portion of the missile mass. Could someone remind me how much an MSP is supposed to be in tonnes?
1/20th of a hull space or 2.5 tons.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 05, 2009, 11:17:37 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
You will also be able to detect fire controls locking on (when EW is added) so self-guiding missiles would avoid giving away the position of the firing ship.
Shouldn't that be dependent on whether the missile is using active or passive systems?
Post by: sloanjh on March 05, 2009, 07:45:34 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Even now a missile guidance system would be no more than about 100kg even for the largest missile. I would say that the standard package could be considered a negligible part of the missile mass.Quote from: "welchbloke"That's correct, I think of Aurora missiles as equivalent to command guided SAMs or semi-active AAMs. Both of these missiles require a guidance system of sorts to receive data and calculate any course corrections. Personally, given the advances in miniaturisation that have occured in real life, I think the guidance package would constitute a negligible portion of the missile mass. Could someone remind me how much an MSP is supposed to be in tonnes?
1/20th of a hull space or 2.5 tons.
Just to clarify, I was using the missile guidance package (e.g. including things like steering system) "as an example". In other words, it seems like the components shouldn't be infinitely miniturizable - at some point a fixed cost will show up that will begin to kill efficiency. If nothing else, this will be the skin/framework which provides for the structural integrity of the missile. Essentially "guidance package" was technobabble for all of this fixed overhead, in the same way that the bridge of a starship accounts for all sorts of administrative overhead tonnage.
Where this fixed cost shows up is pretty much up to Steve - he can choose it to be so small as to be negligible, or he can make it significant. Note that even a 0.5 HS overhead (which I consider to be fairly high) had a fairly low (~16%) impact on the smallest (worst-case) missile cited in the example.
John
Post by: welchbloke on March 06, 2009, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Ah, it becomes clear :)Quote from: "welchbloke"Quote from: "Erik Luken"*SNIP*Even now a missile guidance system would be no more than about 100kg even for the largest missile. I would say that the standard package could be considered a negligible part of the missile mass.
1/20th of a hull space or 2.5 tons.
Just to clarify, I was using the missile guidance package (e.g. including things like steering system) "as an example". In other words, it seems like the components shouldn't be infinitely miniturizable - at some point a fixed cost will show up that will begin to kill efficiency. If nothing else, this will be the skin/framework which provides for the structural integrity of the missile. Essentially "guidance package" was technobabble for all of this fixed overhead, in the same way that the bridge of a starship accounts for all sorts of administrative overhead tonnage.
Where this fixed cost shows up is pretty much up to Steve - he can choose it to be so small as to be negligible, or he can make it significant. Note that even a 0.5 HS overhead (which I consider to be fairly high) had a fairly low (~16%) impact on the smallest (worst-case) missile cited in the example.
John