Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: Lazerus on August 22, 2013, 06:24:10 PM
-
So, I was attempting to design a secondary missile for my fighters the other day when I encountered a possible (Or just not thought of problem) with missile submunition design.
It isn't possible to make micro-missiles (ie: Missiles smaller than 1 unit of size). While I can see the reasoning for single-stage missiles having this restriction, I don't see why having a way to make small submunitions for more advanced tech isn't possible. I say this because at certain tech levels, . 5, . 4, and even . 2 sized submunitions become viable for certain applications, and I would love to be able to make them (Because I do love me some Macross).
So, is it even possible to allow for micro-missile submuntions?
(ie: Adding a submunition box to allow for missiles smaller than 1 size, but needing to have it be a second stage?)
-
You used to be able to, but Steve took that out a couple versions back.
-
You used to be able to, but Steve took that out a couple versions back.
Yeah. it got yanked because otherwise you could easily bury a fleet under thousands of worthless decoy missiles that let you strip away all their AMM defenses in short order, and there was no workaround for NPR targetting/firecontrol that would let them ignore the chaff in favor of conserving ammo for shooting at missiles with actual damaging potential. On an unrelated note, excessive use of angry flea decoy missiles could also bring aurora to a grinding halt because of all the additional missiles the game needed to do position updates on, but the main concern was the way it let you basically walk missiles right through any concievable defense.
-
Yeah. it got yanked because otherwise you could easily bury a fleet under thousands of worthless decoy missiles that let you strip away all their AMM defenses in short order, and there was no workaround for NPR targetting/firecontrol that would let them ignore the chaff in favor of conserving ammo for shooting at missiles with actual damaging potential. On an unrelated note, excessive use of angry flea decoy missiles could also bring aurora to a grinding halt because of all the additional missiles the game needed to do position updates on, but the main concern was the way it let you basically walk missiles right through any concievable defense.
What prevents you from "burying a fleet under thousands of worthless" size 1.0 decoy missiles currently?
Where does this limit go?
Perhaps it could be a new tech line "missile miniaturization" starting at 2.0 going down to say 0.1 or 0.2 MSP minimum size allowed?
And would it be so hard to code/script a small extra check each time before launching AAMs? "If size < x, fire_flag = no"
-
What prevents you from "burying a fleet under thousands of worthless" size 1.0 decoy missiles currently?
Where does this limit go?
Perhaps it could be a new tech line "missile miniaturization" starting at 2.0 going down to say 0.1 or 0.2 MSP minimum size allowed?
And would it be so hard to write a small extra check each time before launching AAMs? "If size < x, fire_flag = no"
At higher tech levels, when you have 15-20 damage per msp, having a .05 WH will give you 1 pts of damage. And you could possibly fit fuel and engine into another .05 or .15, giving you a viable missile. So having a size flag would not work.
If you have 4000 missiles engaging your fleet every 10 seconds, you'd want to eliminate as many of them as you could. And if you have dummy missiles interspersed with real ones, that just exacerbates the issue.
-
Maybe, if he'll ever finishes that, we can see their return in Newtonian Aurora. Where a single nuke could clear a spheric kilometre of space.
I doubt that'll happen, though.
Ironically, you can still do what it should originally prevent my just creating a matryoschka missile.
-
At higher tech levels, when you have 15-20 damage per msp, having a .05 WH will give you 1 pts of damage. And you could possibly fit fuel and engine into another .05 or .15, giving you a viable missile. So having a size flag would not work.
The best solution IMHO would be if just like the minimum of 1pts of damage to damage ship hulls, we would have a minimum of say 0.33 or 0.25 pts of dmg to knock out a missile without armor. Notice how this would give you 3-4 times as many AMMs as damaging missiles for the same size.
The AI could then also be coded to use minimal missiles in AMM design.
Another option that is less intensive in number of missiles escalating would be to introduce non-ablative armor that can absorb 1-2 points of damage without degrading. This means AI can build ships that are immune to small missile/AMM fire.
The important point is that as long as missiles and ships both share the same amount of minimum damage to be hurt it will not be possible to achieve balance.
If you have 4000 missiles engaging your fleet every 10 seconds, you'd want to eliminate as many of them as you could. And if you have dummy missiles interspersed with real ones, that just exacerbates the issue.
Isn't that the point of a size flag? The AAM system checks all missiles and primary fires at those that are the biggest threat = biggest missiles?
-
Isn't that the point of a size flag? The AAM system checks all missiles and primary fires at those that are the biggest threat = biggest missiles?
Size 6 ship killers, size 8 decoys. Not necessarily :)
-
Size 6 ship killers, size 8 decoys. Not necessarily :)
Where the size 8 decoy is a great big blob of armor.
John
-
Size 6 ship killers, size 8 decoys. Not necessarily :)
Now I think we are starting to lose the point of how smaller then size 1 missiles would ruin balance :P
In the case of size 1 or lower missiles, normally ship-killers would be the bigger ones...
-
Now I think we are starting to lose the point of how smaller then size 1 missiles would ruin balance :P
In the case of size 1 or lower missiles, normally ship-killers would be the bigger ones...
I was referencing your comment on bigger = more dangerous.
Aurora has enough flexibility to allow you to do nearly anything you want with the ships and weapons. Which is its greatest asset in my opinion.
-
I know, double post.
I think the ultimate culprit behind a lot of what is seen in Aurora is the AI. The AI shoots the biggest missiles first, so it opens itself up to large armored decoys. It shoots at the largest signature first too, bypassing the ships that are doing the actual shooting.
I'm sure there are other "exploits" that exist, just those two were the top of my head.
-
I know, double post.
I think the ultimate culprit behind a lot of what is seen in Aurora is the AI. The AI shoots the biggest missiles first, so it opens itself up to large armored decoys. It shoots at the largest signature first too, bypassing the ships that are doing the actual shooting.
I'm sure there are other "exploits" that exist, just those two were the top of my head.
See, I didn't even know that.
I was more concerned with how you can't effectively miniaturize your multiple warhead designs even in antimatter ages, despite having ridiculous tech. As it stands, you can overwhelm NPC missile defense anyways with sheer missile amount, I notice they never seem to carry anywhere near the stocks or layer their defenses with gun-based AMM, meaning 2-3 volleys of 10-20 missiles is usually enough.
As it stands, sander-type multi-missiles are useless against any sort of good ship design because they'll likely have 10+ layers of armor, meaning you'll be wasting a smegton of resources compared to single warhead Anti-ship missiles.
The only real use for micromissiles is anti-FAC and anti-fighter, at least in my eyes, and they don't have anti-missile defense anyways.
-
See, I didn't even know that.
The only real use for micromissiles is anti-FAC and anti-fighter, at least in my eyes, and they don't have anti-missile defense anyways.
Beam armed fighters are often quite capable against missiles. They tend to have small fast firing weapons with a good tracking speed because of the fighters speed and the free x4 multiplier on the fire control.
Brian
-
Beam armed fighters are often quite capable against missiles. They tend to have small fast firing weapons with a good tracking speed because of the fighters speed and the free x4 multiplier on the fire control.
Brian
True, but at least with my particular missile ships, good isn't enough, since you'd need to be taking 40+ warheads per salvo, and that's before multi-warhead missiles are involved
-
True, but at least with my particular missile ships, good isn't enough, since you'd need to be taking 40+ warheads per salvo, and that's before multi-warhead missiles are involved
There I'd be curious whether the cost of all those missiles isn't more then the fighters your blowing-up.
-
There I'd be curious whether the cost of all those missiles isn't more then the fighters your blowing-up.
I should mention those are anti-ship missiles, not anti-fighter missiles.
Those are completely different and significantly cheaper.
-
See, I didn't even know that.
I was more concerned with how you can't effectively miniaturize your multiple warhead designs even in antimatter ages, despite having ridiculous tech. As it stands, you can overwhelm NPC missile defense anyways with sheer missile amount, I notice they never seem to carry anywhere near the stocks or layer their defenses with gun-based AMM, meaning 2-3 volleys of 10-20 missiles is usually enough.
As it stands, sander-type multi-missiles are useless against any sort of good ship design because they'll likely have 10+ layers of armor, meaning you'll be wasting a smegton of resources compared to single warhead Anti-ship missiles.
The only real use for micromissiles is anti-FAC and anti-fighter, at least in my eyes, and they don't have anti-missile defense anyways.
The use of "sander" missiles is as good as a single large warhead as the armour is ablative. How you do the damage is more or less not relevant, only the amount. If you look at any individual engagement it matters but when you look at the situation from the point of view of multiple battles then damage is damage. So a single warhead impact for 9 points or 9 warheads for 1 point is pretty much the same to the target. Where the "sander" MIRV comes into its own is if you can handle 40 inbounds but not 120. In one case you take 1-2 leaker missiles in the other you take 80+ leakers.
But the root of the problem is that armour is ablative. So damage is damage. Until you fix that then you are basicaly sticking a bandage over a sucking chest wound and hoping for the best.
-
We have been promised the introduction of shock damage which should favor larger warheads compared to many small ones.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue Lazerus, as you have observed the AI missile defense is pretty weak, and you want to make weapon systems possible which would reduce anti-missile capabilities even further by flooding them with micro missile spam. I don't think nerfing the limited AI defenses even further is an useful thing.
-
We have been promised the introduction of shock damage which should favor larger warheads compared to many small ones.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue Lazerus, as you have observed the AI missile defense is pretty weak, and you want to make weapon systems possible which would reduce anti-missile capabilities even further by flooding them with micro missile spam. I don't think nerfing the limited AI defenses even further is an useful thing.
It was mostly for my fighters, not for my actual anti-ship missiles, and also because at my current games tech level (Late antimatter), these sorts of things seem like they would be the norm.
And yes, I know the AI has weak missile defense, but that appears to be a flaw for every ship design of AI heritage from guided missile cruisers to FAC
While I know that it could be used to overwhelm missile defenses, lets be honest, who here doesn't have fleets that overwhelm AI missile defense as it is?