Gauss turret PD vs 10cm Rail - Dispelling common myths with math

[Jorgen_CAB]

That only affects gauss turret vs gauss turret, so not at all

It effects Rail-guns versus Gauss as well as the Rail-gun in this case are the high volume low accuracy guns and the Gauss is the low volume high accuracy one. 

[Iceranger]

But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.

I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.

We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?

This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...

Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.

Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.

I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.

There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.

I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.

The distribution might look something like this...

Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7

That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...

Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1

The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6

The result is...

Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0

I hope you understand the difference here?!?

Smaller guns have the same average but higher variance, thus they are more likely to deviate from the average.

In your example (and many others' examples), the case when the deviation goes below the average is emphasized. However, it is equally likely the end result goes above the average. Thus, smaller turrets have a chance to intercept more missiles than the average, where the 100% turrets have 0 chance of doing so.

Since we are talking statistically, one example hardly matters under a large number of trials...

[Jorgen_CAB]

But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.

I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.

We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?

This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...

Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.

Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.

I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.

There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.

I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.

The distribution might look something like this...

Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7

That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...

Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1

The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6

The result is...

Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0

I hope you understand the difference here?!?

Smaller guns have the same average but higher variance, thus they are more likely to deviate from the average.

In your example (and many others' examples), the case when the deviation goes below the average is emphasized. However, it is equally likely the end result goes above the average. Thus, smaller turrets have a chance to intercept more missiles than the average, where the 100% turrets have 0 chance of doing so.

Since we are talking statistically, one example hardly matters under a large number of trials...

No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.

As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.

If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.

I have done practical tests in the game and know it matters quite allot actually.

There "might" however be some cases where Rail-gun have an advantage as they have more guns and can potentially engage more salvos than Gauss turrets, especially dual or bigger Gauss turrets.

[Iceranger]

But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.

I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.

We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?

This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...

Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.

Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.

I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.

There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.

I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.

The distribution might look something like this...

Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7

That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...

Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1

The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6

The result is...

Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0

I hope you understand the difference here?!?

Smaller guns have the same average but higher variance, thus they are more likely to deviate from the average.

In your example (and many others' examples), the case when the deviation goes below the average is emphasized. However, it is equally likely the end result goes above the average. Thus, smaller turrets have a chance to intercept more missiles than the average, where the 100% turrets have 0 chance of doing so.

Since we are talking statistically, one example hardly matters under a large number of trials...

No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.

As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.

If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.

Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...

Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.

[Jorgen_CAB]

But if there is five salvos each with one missile as your other turrets managed to kill all the rest of the missile in those salvos. You now have only one missile left in each... this is what I say... there is no OTHER target for the second gun in the same turret to fire at.

I assume that there weapons are either turreted or fire multiple shots so can only target ONE salvo each.

We are comparing rail guns with gauss turret since the beginning?

This is a sepparate thing as you remarked on it... the example have to be easy to understand...

Have you EVER actually done any test in the game... it is very easy to see the result if you for example use full size gauss at 100% and then use double the number of 50% gauss and have them intercept missiles in a test scenario. The 50% Gauss will produce more leaking missiles than the 100% gauss even if they have the same AVERAGE number of kills theoretically.

Here is an "extreme" easier to understand example.

I have 10 turrets each with a single full size Gauss (4 shots) gun that hit incoming missiles at 100% accuracy.

There are 5 incoming salvos each with 8 missiles. My 10 turrets will shoot down ALL missiles at 100% probability.

I now have 10 turrets with two twin half size Gauss (2x4 shots) that have an accuracy of 50%.

The distribution might look something like this...

Turret / Kills
1 / 5
2 / 2
3 / 2
4 / 4
5 / 7

That mean after all salvos been engage once i have 5 salvos left with...

Salvo / missiles left
1 / 3
2 / 6
3 / 6
4 / 4
5 / 1

The next five turrets fire and do...
Turrets / Kills
1 / 2
2 / 5
3 / 6
4 / 1
5 / 6

The result is...

Salvo / missile left
1 / 1
2 / 1
3 / 0
4 / 3
5 / 0

I hope you understand the difference here?!?

Smaller guns have the same average but higher variance, thus they are more likely to deviate from the average.

In your example (and many others' examples), the case when the deviation goes below the average is emphasized. However, it is equally likely the end result goes above the average. Thus, smaller turrets have a chance to intercept more missiles than the average, where the 100% turrets have 0 chance of doing so.

Since we are talking statistically, one example hardly matters under a large number of trials...

No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.

As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.

If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.

Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...

Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.

Can you expand on that as I did not follow... 2 turrets can only engage two salvoes no matter what is in those turrets?!?

But I might not understand the example.

[Iceranger]

No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.

As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.

If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.

Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...

Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.

Can you expand on that as I did not follow... 2 turrets can only engage two salvoes no matter what is in those turrets?!?

But I might not understand the example.

Against a salvo of 5 missiles, a single 100% quad gauss can only shot down 4 of them, and the game will use a second turret to target the remaining 1 missile, effectively wasting 3 shots.

Thus if you have 8 salvos of 5 missiles against 10 100% quad gauss turrets, only 5 salvos can be engaged.

[Graham]

I think we are getting somewhat off topic here talking about comparing different sized Gauss. Going back to the original point of Gauss vs Rails, it is clear that yes, Gauss have improved in viability compared to VB6. I do think that the pro-Gauss lobby as it were is still missing some points. For one, your estimation of costs Jorgen is based upon using a maintenance station costing 1750 BP. If ground based facilities are used, the cost is only 480 BP. Therefore total costs change to 1230BP for the rails vs 2130 BP, meaning a cost increase of 185% to build. What's more the maintenance cost is even more in Gauss' favour. This means they have to be stationed at a population sufficient to man the facilities, but I think that's a fine compromise in many cases.

What's more, railgun tech is basically free, the BFC's are a lot cheaper to research etc. Then, when used on fast ships as PD for a beam fleet perhaps, the Railguns have the advantage that they can be used more easily as duel role offensive and defensive armament. So yes, certainly Railguns aren't as dominant as people were claiming they were all the way to fairly end game techs, but they do very much hold advantages well into Gaus ROF 4, 5 and potentially 6, and the choice of Gauss vs Railguns is probably going to depend on what your primary striking weapons and fleet doctrine are.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think we are getting somewhat off topic here talking about comparing different sized Gauss. Going back to the original point of Gauss vs Rails, it is clear that yes, Gauss have improved in viability compared to VB6. I do think that the pro-Gauss lobby as it were is still missing some points. For one, your estimation of costs Jorgen is based upon using a maintenance station costing 1750 BP. If ground based facilities are used, the cost is only 480 BP. Therefore total costs change to 1230BP for the rails vs 2130 BP, meaning a cost increase of 185% to build. What's more the maintenance cost is even more in Gauss' favour. This means they have to be stationed at a population sufficient to man the facilities, but I think that's a fine compromise in many cases.

What's more, railgun tech is basically free, the BFC's are a lot cheaper to research etc. Then, when used on fast ships as PD for a beam fleet perhaps, the Railguns have the advantage that they can be used more easily as duel role offensive and defensive armament. So yes, certainly Railguns aren't as dominant as people were claiming they were all the way to fairly end game techs, but they do very much hold advantages well into Gaus ROF 4, 5 and potentially 6, and the choice of Gauss vs Railguns is probably going to depend on what your primary striking weapons and fleet doctrine are.

In my opinion ground based is worse as they also cost population to maintain which is one of the more rare resources there is in the game (especially at advanced outposts). It is allot easier to use pure BP as no to confuse the issue even more.

I also agree with the doctrine... it depend on what you do... you can go either way and do very well.

[Jorgen_CAB]

No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.

As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.

If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.

Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...

Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.

Can you expand on that as I did not follow... 2 turrets can only engage two salvoes no matter what is in those turrets?!?

But I might not understand the example.

Against a salvo of 5 missiles, a single 100% quad gauss can only shot down 4 of them, and the game will use a second turret to target the remaining 1 missile, effectively wasting 3 shots.

Thus if you have 8 salvos of 5 missiles against 10 100% quad gauss turrets, only 5 salvos can be engaged.

Although Steve did some changes to how PD engages and should always choose the larger salvo now... have not really tested how that work in practice though.

[Iceranger]

No that's a fallacy I also fell into before. When a salvo is fired against you these edge cases ALWAYS appear as you need to kill every incoming salvo and the game often waste turrets on these edge cases whether you want it or not.

As long as there is missiles left in the salvo which it can't kill in one round the distribution does not matter mathematically, only the average matter.

If you face super large volleys of missiles like say 120 missiles in five volleys it might not matter much but if you instead face 60 volleys of 10 missiles you do... this is why volley volume is as important as the actual number of missiles fired in any attack... the same goes for MFC and AMM saturation to some degree.

Ws small salvos what you said is the same for all turret sizes though...

Using your example, assume it is not 5 salvos of 8, but 8 salvos of 5, the game will intercept 5 salvos of 5 with 2 100% quad turrets each, leaving 3 salvos of 5 missiles untouched. On the other hand, 2 50% turrets with 8 shots have a non-trivial chance ((1+8+28+56)/256 = 36.3%) to hit all 5 missiles in a salvo, thus having a better chance to intercept all missiles.

Can you expand on that as I did not follow... 2 turrets can only engage two salvoes no matter what is in those turrets?!?

But I might not understand the example.

Against a salvo of 5 missiles, a single 100% quad gauss can only shot down 4 of them, and the game will use a second turret to target the remaining 1 missile, effectively wasting 3 shots.

Thus if you have 8 salvos of 5 missiles against 10 100% quad gauss turrets, only 5 salvos can be engaged.

Although Steve did some changes to how PD engages and should always choose the larger salvo now... have not really tested how that work in practice though.

OK since I have the setup already I did some tests. A BFC engages multiple salvos in sequential order, only when the current salvo is completely shot down the BFC will engage the next one. This is consistent with what Steve mentioned in the mechanics thread.

Our test subject:

Code: [Select]

Aberdeen class Destroyer      12,000 tons       351 Crew       5,137.4 BP       TCS 240    TH 4,800    EM 0
20000 km/s      Armour 6-46       Shields 0-0       HTK 69      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 10      PPV 63.36
Maint Life 2.32 Years     MSP 2,675    AFR 115%    IFR 1.6%    1YR 675    5YR 10,120    Max Repair 1200 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   

Inertial Fusion Drive  EP2400.00 (2)    Power 4800    Fuel Use 30.81%    Signature 2400    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 849,000 Litres    Range 41.3 billion km (23 days at full power)

Single Gauss Cannon R200-100 Turret (8x6)    Range 20,000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R600-TS40000 (1)     Max Range: 600,000 km   TS: 40,000 km/s   
Filler (1)     Total Power Output 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS24-R1 (1)     GPS 60     Range 24.7m km    MCR 2.2m km    Resolution 1

ECCM-6 (1)         ECM 60

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

BFC setup:


Incoming missiles:


Results:
Defender side event log:


Attacker side event log:


So one salve went in unopposed, both guns are directed at the first salvo, as one gun can only shoot down 6 of the 7 missiles in the salvo.

[smoelf]

That's interesting. If I am reading you correctly, it seems that in order to handle multiple, simultaneous salvoes, you would need either multiple fire controls OR sufficient shots per weapon to deal with each salvo individually. That would seem to favor smaller gauss turrets to save space for multiple fire controls.

Out of curiosity: What happens if you assign a third turret to the same fire control? Does it engage the second salvo or would each turret individually need to deal with each salvo on their own?

[Pedroig]

Will a third gun engage the other salvo on the same BFC?  Right now everything you have stated seems to be working as intended.  Also were the two missile salvos launched from the same vessel on different launchers or different vessels?

[Iceranger]

That's intereting. If I am reading you correctly, it seems that in order to handle multiple, simultaneous salvoes, you would need either multiple fire controls OR sufficient shots per weapon to deal with each salvo individually. That would seem to favor smaller gauss turrets to save space for multiple fire controls.

Out of curiosity: What happens if you assign a third turret to the same fire control? Does it engage the second salvo or would each turret individually need to deal with each salvo on their own?

It indeed does in accordance with Steve's changelog. The 3rd turret controlled by the same BFC engaged the 2nd salvo.

[Iceranger]

Will a third gun engage the other salvo on the same BFC?  Right now everything you have stated seems to be working as intended.  Also were the two missile salvos launched from the same vessel on different launchers or different vessels?

Launched from the same ship under different MFCs.

[smoelf]

Huh. That would also mean that with proper intel, you could propably design your salvos to cause maximum overkill.