Point defense calculation

[Charlie Beeler]

Effectively,  if you have any ship that can see a target (missile, ship, fighter, etc) then any of your other ships can target it.  Even if out of actual range of the weapons system or endurance of the missile.  That is see it with active sensors.  Passive targeting is a lot more restricted.

[Steve Walmsley]

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.  

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.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

> 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.

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?

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.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

A general point on missiles. While it is possible to create a beam-only race, I think every race needs some missile tech, even if it is relatively limited. In modern day naval combat, which is a major influence on Aurora, every naval power has missiles of some sort backed up by guns and Phalanx-type weapons for shorter-range combat. Another major influence on Aurora is the Honor Harrington universe which has missiles as the primary long range weapon backed up by short-ranged energy weapons. In Aurora, missiles are usually the best way to hit a target at long range in deep space, as well as providing the basis for buoys, recon drones and mines. This isn't the same as Starfire though where every race develops the same Capital Missile. The huge variety of missile designs leads to some fascinating match-ups between different missile and anti-missile design philosophies. Missile design is as much a part of the game as ship design.

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

[sloanjh]

Another thing to remember is that the cost of researching TL grows with TL.  This means that, for example, a race at TL5 for the various missile techs could probably advance to eg TL 3-4 in a particular beam weapon for the same cost as advancing missiles from 5-->6.  A similar argument holds for AAM in a beam-heavy race; they could make big strides in AAM capability fairly cheaply.  So perhaps an interesting question to ask is "how does a totally beam or totally missile strategy compare to a balanced strategy, or to a beam-heavy or missile-heavy strategy?"

John