Post by: metalax on January 19, 2010, 06:58:38 AM
Code: [Select]
anti-missile missile
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 9800 km/s Endurance: 0 minutes Range: 0.3m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.0025 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 2,500 km
Cost Per Missile: 0.4153
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 98% 3k km/s 30% 5k km/s 19.6% 10k km/s 9.8%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 0.0025x Uridium Fuel x3.75
Development Cost for Project: 42RPRange is set to match the basic size 1 res 0 missile fire control, is it sufficient for basic PD duties?Where can you see the thermal signal strength for a missile? Would the minimal thermal sensors be enough for it to lock on to another salvo fired at the same time from the same ship ie travelling together?
Code: [Select]
Anti-ship Missile
Missile Size: 12 MSP (0.6 HS) Warhead: 8 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 8300 km/s Endurance: 60 minutes Range: 29.9m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.25 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 250,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.9167
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 83% 3k km/s 20% 5k km/s 16.6% 10k km/s 8.3%
Materials Required: 2x Tritanium 0.25x Uridium 1.4167x Gallicite Fuel x5000
Development Cost for Project: 392RPMatched up with a size 5 res 20 missile FC.Is this a reasonable design at least as a stop-gap until I can tech up a bit?
Will PDC's automatically reload from a planets stockpiles? If so is there any delay?
Sorium Harvesters will stop harvesting if the fuel tanks are full, correct?
Post by: Rathos on January 19, 2010, 07:22:47 AM
I'm not sure but most of the missiles I've seen have been faster than that!
Here is a AMM I just designed to try and stop the alien missiles.
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 9 MSP (0.45 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 26
Speed: 26700 km/s Endurance: 2 minutes Range: 2.5m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 180,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 4.83
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 694.2% 3k km/s 208% 5k km/s 138.8% 10k km/s 69.4%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 0.18x Uridium 7.35x Gallicite Fuel x250
Development Cost for Project: 483RPI have a bit more tech than a conventional start though I don't have a lot yet. I also have a Active Search Sensor S420-R1 (1) GPS 420 Range 4.2m km Resolution 1 for scanning for missiles.
My problem is their missiles travel ridiculously fast and the best possible % i can get at 10k is 71% with a 24 size missile. These are smaller, enough to be able to fit in a Dual pack MIRV.
Post by: sloanjh on January 19, 2010, 08:08:29 AM
Quote from: "Rathos"
The problem I see with your AMM is that it only has a 9.8% chance to hit a target going 10k/s
I'm not sure but most of the missiles I've seen have been faster than that!
Here is a AMM I just designed to try and stop the alien missiles.Code: [Select]Missile Size: 9 MSP (0.45 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 26
Speed: 26700 km/s Endurance: 2 minutes Range: 2.5m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 180,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 4.83
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 694.2% 3k km/s 208% 5k km/s 138.8% 10k km/s 69.4%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 0.18x Uridium 7.35x Gallicite Fuel x250
Development Cost for Project: 483RP
I have a bit more tech than a conventional start though I don't have a lot yet. I also have a Active Search Sensor S420-R1 (1) GPS 420 Range 4.2m km Resolution 1 for scanning for missiles.
My problem is their missiles travel ridiculously fast and the best possible % i can get at 10k is 71% with a 24 size missile. These are smaller, enough to be able to fit in a Dual pack MIRV.
Actually, metalax's missile is probably better, if I'm reading your design correctly. The reason is that you've gone to size-9 for an anti-missile, and the launch rate is inversely proportional to missile size. So your missiles are going to launch 9x slower than a size-1 design. If I divide your 69.4% hit probability @ 10k, I get about a 6.3% hit probability, which is about 35% worse than the size-1 design's.
This might be offset by the 5-second floor on missile launch times (i.e. your launcher might not actually launch 9x slower than his), but in general a good rule of thumb is that AMM should be size 1 (or at worst size 2).
EDIT: Oops - forgot the other (more important) problem - size 9 launchers take up 9x space, so you'll be able fix 9x fewer into a volley. Coupled with the launch rate slowdown, this means your salvos will be 35% less effective (9x fewer missiles) and 9x less frequent, so only about 4% as effective as the size-1 design.
John
Post by: Rathos on January 19, 2010, 08:46:03 AM
Post by: metalax on January 19, 2010, 10:27:19 AM
Post by: Rathos on January 19, 2010, 10:45:36 AM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 19, 2010, 11:00:55 AM
Here is an average starting counter missile from my games:
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 29
Speed: 24000 km/s Endurance: 2 minutes Range: 3.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.125
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 696% 3k km/s 232% 5k km/s 139.2% 10k km/s 69.6%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 0.614x Gallicite Fuel x25
Development Cost for Project: 112RPWarheads have been researched to 5pts per msp, Ion missile engines, fuel eff 60%, and missile agility to 64 per msp.
The above design is .2 WH, .5 eng, .01 fuel, and .29 agility. They average something like 28% against Precursor ASM's traveling at over 33k/kps. Mate these with res 0 sensors with a 3mkm range, launcher that at least has a 10sec cycle, and set the PD mode to 3 missiles per target missile and you should be in good shape for the early game. As long as you have ample supply of missiles on board and in your fleet train.
For counter missiles I find that onboard sensors take up space better used for engines or agility.
Post by: Canaris on January 19, 2010, 12:09:54 PM
I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.
My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.
Post by: welchbloke on January 19, 2010, 01:30:25 PM
Quote from: "Canaris"
Are AMMs worthwhile?The utility of AMMs depends upon your doctrine. I subscribe to the 'missiles should not get into CIWS range' doctrine. I have escort ships with large res 0 sensors and I engage at 5M km plus if I can. I still carry CIWS and some lasers, but they are definately the last line of defence not the primary. The advantage your ships would have over mine is logistics. I need a fleet of colliers to support my ships on extended ops and AMMs add to the burden. My ASM designs tend be size 5/6(primary offensive missile), size 10 (long range with good active sensor suite) and, for PDCs, size 24.
I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.
My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 19, 2010, 02:35:46 PM
I've started a new campaign in v4.82 and this is my current escort cruiser:
Code: [Select]
Portland class Escort Cruiser 11000 tons 930 Crew 2171 BP TCS 220 TH 265.65 EM 660
3450 km/s Armour 3-44 Shields 22-240 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 21 PPV 15
Annual Failure Rate: 84% IFR: 1.2% Maintenance Capacity 1419 MSP Max Repair 315 MSP
Magazine 910
Ion Engine E7.8 (mil/cbt) (11) Power 69 Fuel Use 78% Signature 24.15 Armour 0 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 600,000 Litres Range 125.9 billion km (422 days at full power)
Gamma R240/12 Shields (11) Total Fuel Cost 132 Litres per day
Quad Gauss Cannon RF4-R1-100 Turret (1x16) Range 10,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 1 ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S04 16-16000 (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 69 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Counter Missile Launcher mk1 (10) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC105-R1 (2) Range 3.2m km Resolution 1
CM-1-1 (910) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 2.1m Range: 3m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 232 / 139 / 69
Active Search Sensor S315-R1 (1) GPS 315 Range 3.2m km Resolution 1
ECCM-1 (3) ECM 10
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposesWord to the wise, I have cheated a little. My database has been modifed with turret speeds matching 4x same generation fire control and Gauss cannon sizes being between .1hs and 1.0 hs instead of being between .5hs and 6hs.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 19, 2010, 02:53:47 PM
Quote from: "Canaris"
Are AMMs worthwhile?
I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.
My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.
I also don´t think you can realy get around them.
Shure, if your 5 cruisers encounter a single enemy missileboat, that lobs salvos of 6 to 8 missiles at you, your turrets will pluck pretty much all of them out of space.
But in my last 4.7x game, my last CGs (15.000t) mounted 140 size-4 box launchers. Now imagine my average battlesquadron had 4 to 6 of those along with escorts. This gave the squadron the capability to throw some 600+ missiles in one massive salvo at you. Granted. after that, the launchers would be empty, but your ships would very likely be dead. I prefer the former to the latter
P.S.: I don´t think even a layered defense can keep your ships save against salvos that big, but there is a definitive distinction between 20 to 30 missiles hitting you and 150 to 200 hitting you.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 19, 2010, 03:20:04 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "Canaris"Are AMMs worthwhile?
I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.
My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.
I also don´t think you can realy get around them.
Shure, if your 5 cruisers encounter a single enemy missileboat, that lobs salvos of 6 to 8 missiles at you, your turrets will pluck pretty much all of them out of space.
But in my last 4.7x game, my last CGs (15.000t) mounted 140 size-4 box launchers. Now imagine my average battlesquadron had 4 to 6 of those along with escorts. This gave the squadron the capability to throw some 600+ missiles in one massive salvo at you. Granted. after that, the launchers would be empty, but your ships would very likely be dead. I prefer the former to the latter
P.S.: I don´t think even a layered defense can keep your ships save against salvos that big, but there is a definitive distinction between 20 to 30 missiles hitting you and 150 to 200 hitting you.
Exactly. Smallcraft swarms can also be very nasty. I've encountered Precuror FAC's with 10 size 4 box launchers. Even a pair of the above CLE's have trouble with 60 inbounds travelling at 33K/kps.
Post by: metalax on January 20, 2010, 05:02:15 AM
Where can you see the thermal signal strength given off by a missile?
Will PDC's automatically reload from a planets stockpiles? If so is there any delay?
Sorium Harvesters will stop harvesting if the fuel tanks are full, correct?
Replacement battalions, what are they for?
Post by: Hawkeye on January 20, 2010, 05:33:43 AM
Quote from: "metalax"
A few more questions:
Where can you see the thermal signal strength given off by a missile?
Not sure you can.
My guess would be: Multiply your Missile engine power per MSP (on the missile construction screen) by the space you allocated to engine.
For example, with nuclear pulse missile drive, you get 1.6 engine power per MSP. If you allocate 1.5 MSP to the engine of a missile, it should have a thermal sig of 2.4.
Note: This is all speculation on my part!!
Quote from: "metalax"
Will PDC's automatically reload from a planets stockpiles? If so is there any delay?
Not to my knowledge, but you can reload manually on the ships screen (F6) --> Parasites/Missiles tab
Quote from: "metalax"
Sorium Harvesters will stop harvesting if the fuel tanks are full, correct?
Yes and you should also get a message about the fact in the log
Quote from: "metalax"
Replacement battalions, what are they for?
They are, well, replacement
Losses due to ground combat will be made good over time. The presence of replacement battalion speed this up considerably.
Post by: metalax on January 20, 2010, 05:57:18 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "metalax"A few more questions:
Where can you see the thermal signal strength given off by a missile?
Not sure you can.
My guess would be: Multiply your Missile engine power per MSP (on the missile construction screen) by the space you allocated to engine.
For example, with nuclear pulse missile drive, you get 1.6 engine power per MSP. If you allocate 1.5 MSP to the engine of a missile, it should have a thermal sig of 2.4.
Note: This is all speculation on my part!!
That's about what I'd guessed for manually working it out too.
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "metalax"Replacement battalions, what are they for?
They are, well, replacement
Losses due to ground combat will be made good over time. The presence of replacement battalion speed this up considerably.
Oh? I was under the impression from the Ground Combat Rules (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=697) post that units were either fully healthy or destroyed.
I realise that the post is rather old but I haven't been able to find anything referring to changes in combat beyond the post in the mechanics forum where boarding and new units were introduced.
If it has changed and units can now be damaged, how does it work?
Post by: Hawkeye on January 20, 2010, 06:24:14 AM
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1566&p=14265&hilit=replacement+division#p14265 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1566&p=14265&hilit=replacement+division#p14265)
and here
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1680&p=15830&hilit=replacement+battalion#p15830 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1680&p=15830&hilit=replacement+battalion#p15830)
Post by: metalax on January 20, 2010, 06:40:15 AM
Post by: Father Tim on January 20, 2010, 06:24:17 PM
Replacement Battalions (a la WWII U.S. Army) rapidly speed things up, such that units actively fighting a ground war will stay in pretty good shape. Somewhere around 50 times faster than recovering on their own.
Of course, unless you're fighting on your homeworld, it may be better to spend trooplift on bringing in more combat battalions than on replacements for the existing ground troops. Just another one of Aurora's ten thousand little choices and efficiency calculations.
Post by: sloanjh on January 20, 2010, 07:40:42 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
ground units will acutally 'repair' themselves even on an airless rock deep in enemy territory and completely cut-off from resupply.
Hey!! Those 10-man, stealthed, long ranged, jump-capable infiltration fighters are REALLY good at what they do!! So good that you can't even see them from SM view
And there are so many of them too!John
Post by: Rathos on January 21, 2010, 01:08:05 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Father Tim"ground units will acutally 'repair' themselves even on an airless rock deep in enemy territory and completely cut-off from resupply.
Hey!! Those 10-man, stealthed, long ranged, jump-capable infiltration fighters are REALLY good at what they do!! So good that you can't even see them from SM view :mrgreen:
Post by: waresky on January 21, 2010, 01:18:08 PM
Quote from: "Rathos"
Quote from: "sloanjh"Quote from: "Father Tim"ground units will acutally 'repair' themselves even on an airless rock deep in enemy territory and completely cut-off from resupply.
Hey!! Those 10-man, stealthed, long ranged, jump-capable infiltration fighters are REALLY good at what they do!! So good that you can't even see them from SM view :mrgreen:
Rathos..
ive been missed something: Combat Drop for ur Company middle the battle..or Cargo handling for speed up load unload in COLONY landscape.
Post by: Rathos on January 21, 2010, 01:20:42 PM
Code: [Select]
Ark Royal class Stealth Troop Transport 1800 tons 116 Crew 1708.5 BP TCS 0.18 TH 3.75 EM 0
10416 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 1-13 Shields 0-0 Sensors 75/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 3 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 8% IFR: 0.1% Maintenance Capacity 1780 MSP Max Repair 1305 MSP
Troop Capacity: 1 Company Drop Capacity: 1 Company Cargo Handling Multiplier 40
J2500(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 2500 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Photonic Drive E0.5 ARM-10 (1) Power 375 Fuel Use 5% Signature 3.75 Armour 10 Exp 1% Hyper Capable
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 999.9 billion km (1111 days at full power)
Thermal Sensor TH1-75 (1) Sensitivity 75 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 75m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 0.5% of normal
ECM 50
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
All better now =)
Post by: waresky on January 21, 2010, 02:31:55 PM
ur welcome.
Post by: metalax on January 21, 2010, 03:07:10 PM
From what I've gathered reading the forum, engineers benefit from the Xenology bonus when working on recovering installations. Do they gain bonuses from being attached to HQ units who also have Xenology bonuses in a similar way to benefits from ground combat bonuses?
How do you change the racial training level?
Is it possible for a geosurvey team to find that there are no deposits on a body? So far every body that I've put a team on has found at least one deposit, even if it is very small(1000 Duranium being the smallest find so far).
Post by: metalax on January 23, 2010, 08:30:07 PM
Do you need more than one ECM on a ship? I know you need one ECCM per firecontrol.
Post by: Kurt on January 24, 2010, 12:40:49 AM
Quote from: "metalax"
Where can you see the armour on a turret after it has been designed?
Do you need more than one ECM on a ship? I know you need one ECCM per firecontrol.
As far as I know you can't see the turret armor anywhere. I don't think turret armor has been updated since Steve introduced the new armor system, so that may explain it.
You only need one ECM, although I suppose you could mount more for redundancy purposes.
Kurt
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 24, 2010, 05:09:29 AM
Brian
Post by: VariousArtist on February 03, 2010, 11:31:48 AM
Whats about offensive missiles? A few size6-designs have been mentioned and a active sensor suit. So far Ive never used active sensors on missles, so what do you use as good early and mid-game design? And whats about electronic warfare capability?
thx
Post by: Brian Neumann on February 03, 2010, 03:10:44 PM
Quote from: "VariousArtist"
The info about the AMM had been very helpful.The active sensors, or passive sensors on a missile allow the missile to home in on a target if they can be detected by the missile's own sensor capability. This most often happens if the original target was destroyed, when the follow on waves reach the spot where it was destroyed they will be looking for an alternate target. If they see some they will randomly pick one as a target and attack it. Having a small sensor package on larger missiles is a good way to avoid loosing a bunch of expensive missiles due to overkilling the target.
Whats about offensive missiles? A few size6-designs have been mentioned and a active sensor suit. So far Ive never used active sensors on missles, so what do you use as good early and mid-game design? And whats about electronic warfare capability?
thx
Missile ECM will make hitting the missiles much harder. the net difference between (ECM-ECCM)x10 is the percent reduction in the beam weapons to hit chance, and the missile weapons fire control range.
Armour works as the chance that a hit actually destroying the missile is the damage the weapon does to the missile/(sum of missile armour and the damage). This means that a one point warhead on a pd missile will have a 50% chance to kill a missile it hits that has 1 point of armour. As missile interception chances at lower tech level's are around 25%, this can make a big difference in how many counter missiles are required to stop an incomming salvo. It also works the same way against beam weapons/gauss cannon. One point of armour will make light railguns and gauss cannon much less effective as pd weapons. heavier railguns and lasers will still work reasonably well (a 10cm laser does 3 points of damage so has a 75% chance to kill what it hits against 1 point of armour).
For small missiles it is a difficult question as to whether any sensors/defences are practical. For larger missiles having some space set aside can be very effective. It all depends on your design strategy. The only thing that better tech does not help is the effectivness of armour. This is just a constant based on how many MSP you put into it.
Brian
Post by: Father Tim on February 03, 2010, 04:32:39 PM
*It used to be that any missile would destroy any missile, which led to people building 0-point warhead antimissiles, which various members of this board disagreed with. Personally I'm fine with it, but I'm in the minority and Steve upped the requirement to 'at least 1 point of warhead strength'.
Post by: dammrebel on February 04, 2010, 04:57:36 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Canaris"Are AMMs worthwhile?The utility of AMMs depends upon your doctrine. I subscribe to the 'missiles should not get into CIWS range' doctrine. I have escort ships with large res 0 sensors and I engage at 5M km plus if I can. I still carry CIWS and some lasers, but they are definately the last line of defence not the primary. The advantage your ships would have over mine is logistics. I need a fleet of colliers to support my ships on extended ops and AMMs add to the burden. My ASM designs tend be size 5/6(primary offensive missile), size 10 (long range with good active sensor suite) and, for PDCs, size 24.
I'm pretty much just relying on one or more twin 10cm laser turrets for PD backed up (usually) by a CIWS or two. It seems to do the job fairly well.
My most common missile designs are size 10, size 12, and size 20. I did design a size 5 that was pretty fast, meant to be used against fast, small craft.
Good point, personally I subscibe to the "human" wave metaphor of missile doctrine. I use smaller missiles (my max size anti ship missiles are usually only size 5 max) but throw LOTS of them down range. I try to fight a long range duel when possible. However the NPR's can have scary PD some times so the tactic I've found that works in the case of 'scary good' enemy PD is to close the range, start throwing my size 1 waves from my destroyer escorts (i have lots) at them and them send in my ship killer missiles from my cruisers and battlecruisers mixed in with the size 1 type missiles. This invariably over whelms the NPR PD and the ship killers get through.
Ofcourse that is a lot of missiles down range. I've noticed my ship design doctrine is different than Steve's. When you start a game and you let the program design your initial ships I find that the magazine capacity on the ships is to small for me. My general missile cruiser runs in the 12-14k ton range, will have about 8-10 size 4-5 tubes and 10-15 size 10 magazines. I find it works well, in longer battles where I and the NPR both have excellent PD and very little is getting through I tend to win because the NPR almost always runs dry on missile stock before I do.
My 2 cents.
Jeff