Are these a pair of decent PDC?

[Erik L]

Heh, you're right, I messed up there.
For now, until I design new missiles, I can set the maximum range for the fire control's autofire in the combat screen, so I can prevent it from firing missiles that cannot reach their targets?

Should be able to.

[martinuzz (OP)]

Hmm, interesting.

Could the same layered approach then not also be achieved by only missile launchers?
Use 1 type of Anti-missile fire control that has 5-6m km range, but use different range settings in the combat menu?

For instance, a simplified example:

You have a PDC with 3 missile controls, that have a max range of 5-6m km, and a resolution 1..
It has 3 (size 1) missile launchers, each linked to one of the fire controls.

Now, in the combat settings, you set the "Max PD range in 10k units" to 600 for one launcher, 200 for the next, and 50 for the last.

You could  use three types of missiles for them, trading fuel for agility at each layer.
I guess that would be have economic benefits as well, as there is less chance of wasting missiles on overkill shots (if you calculate things right, and make sure that each layer's salvo will intercept incoming missiles before they reach the next layer's range.

A bigger economic benefit would be, that you do not need to put effort into researching beam stuff, and concentrate on getting *really* good missile power.

[Erik L]

Hmm, interesting.

Could the same layered approach then not also be achieved by only missile launchers?
Use 1 type of Anti-missile fire control that has 5-6m km range, but use different range settings in the combat menu?

For instance, a simplified example:

You have a PDC with 3 missile controls, that have a max range of 5-6m km, and a resolution 1..
It has 3 (size 1) missile launchers, each linked to one of the fire controls.

Now, in the combat settings, you set the "Max PD range in 10k units" to 600 for one launcher, 200 for the next, and 50 for the last.

You could  use three types of missiles for them, trading fuel for agility at each layer.
I guess that would be have economic benefits as well, as there is less chance of wasting missiles on overkill shots (if you calculate things right, and make sure that each layer's salvo will intercept incoming missiles before they reach the next layer's range.

A bigger economic benefit would be, that you do not need to put effort into researching beam stuff, and concentrate on getting *really* good missile power.

You could. This would be best for a PDC rather than mobile units. Just remember... Missile launchers require ammo. Beams do not (other than power plants).

[Brian Neumann]

Thanks for the tips!
About getting a slightly bigger missile fire control.. You're right.. My present missile control has slightly less range than my missiles.
I'm trying to design matching sets of missiles and fire-controls though, where the missile range is about the same as the fire control range.
I name my missile series after the missile control that's going to use them.

It is of no use whatsoever, to have a fire control that has more range than the missile, right? (Except for upward compatibility with future missile designs)

Actually having your fire control outrange your missiles is important.  Enemy ECM reduces the range of missile fire control.  If they have ECM-3, then your fighters are going to be getting a 30% reduction in their range, ie 10m km would be down to 7m km.  That can make a big difference on how close you actually need to be to fire in the first place.

Brian

[Erik L]

Thanks for the tips!
About getting a slightly bigger missile fire control.. You're right.. My present missile control has slightly less range than my missiles.
I'm trying to design matching sets of missiles and fire-controls though, where the missile range is about the same as the fire control range.
I name my missile series after the missile control that's going to use them.

It is of no use whatsoever, to have a fire control that has more range than the missile, right? (Except for upward compatibility with future missile designs)

Actually having your fire control outrange your missiles is important.  Enemy ECM reduces the range of missile fire control.  If they have ECM-3, then your fighters are going to be getting a 30% reduction in their range, ie 10m km would be down to 7m km.  That can make a big difference on how close you actually need to be to fire in the first place.

Brian

Very true, but a 10% missile range vs. MFC range is a bit on the shaky side. It all comes down to personal preference

[martinuzz (OP)]

Looking at my missile control design again, I am starting to doubt that it has too much range.
Even though it says range 14.1m km in the PDC's blueprint, if you look at the design screen for the fire control:

Code: [Select]

Active Sensor Strength: 33.6   Sensitivity Modifier: 140%
Sensor Size: 1.2 HS    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 1    Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 14,100,000 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 1,535,490 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 2,256,000 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 5,076,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 34    Crew: 6
The 14.1m km is against targets of 50 tones (or larger)
against missiles, what the thing is intended for, it's ranges are shorter, with size 6 missiles being at about the lock-on range that is equal to my missile's range.