Missile Movement

[Zap0]

(based on the assumption that AMMs are faster than ASM)

I'd like to attack this assumption: In my game I've got AMMs that are slower than ASMs. Why? AMMs don't need to worry about getting shot at and can spend their tonnage maximizing their hit chance using more maneuverability at the cost of engine tonnage. ASMs on the other hand worry very much about getting shot down and invest more heavily in their speed, as it doubles as their defense.
That means that I could end up in situations where I have ASMs outrunning AMMs, but that would require a given race to fight against their own missiles, which they generally don't :-)

The determinism in missile movement/impact order has been bothering me a little bit. Right now it seems that decoy missiles are the "ideal" play. I like that that can exist as an option in the game mechanics, but rather not have them always be the best option. So I'm in favor of both the AMM moving before ASM and a randomized move order for missiles in their brackets in general.

[Zincat]

I am sorry but this is not acceptable reasoning to me.

I am not against missile decoys in general. But it needs to be something that pertains to electronic warfare. The mechanics have to make sense. This is the reason why I'm against random movement missile order with the current system in place.

If there is no EW, then PD HAS to target largest missiles first. If there is EW then we can have decoys. But the mechanics have to be consistent. Even more so because with AMM you can target exactly the missiles you want. There is never a situation, with AMM, where you are hitting the wrong missiles by chance.

Therefore, having movement randomized would ONLY impact PD beam weapons, and not AMM. So this is not acceptable reasoning. You are basically saying that this "decoy" of sort only affects beam FC and not  missile FC.

[Froggiest1982]

Question: would it possible to make it optional similar to STOs?

So I could just ask to target by speed, chance to hit or size?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Question: would it possible to make it optional similar to STOs?

So I could just ask to target by speed, chance to hit or size?

Yes, that is possible.

[Droll]

Question: would it possible to make it optional similar to STOs?

So I could just ask to target by speed, chance to hit or size?

Yes, that is possible.

This is probably the best outcome as it allows you to direct your gunners to choose targets based on the tactical outlook. You might have knowledge about a certain NPR that might make different incoming missiles in a wave more/less desirable to shoot at.

It also gets around the whole realism/logic issue of what decision making process the gunners would follow.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Question: would it possible to make it optional similar to STOs?

So I could just ask to target by speed, chance to hit or size?

Yes, that is possible.

This is probably the best outcome as it allows you to direct your gunners to choose targets based on the tactical outlook. You might have knowledge about a certain NPR that might make different incoming missiles in a wave more/less desirable to shoot at.

It also gets around the whole realism/logic issue of what decision making process the gunners would follow.

Yes, but it also gives the NPR a harder decision, so AI work would be needed as well. Maybe a longer term option.

[Froggiest1982]

Question: would it possible to make it optional similar to STOs?

So I could just ask to target by speed, chance to hit or size?

Yes, that is possible.

This is probably the best outcome as it allows you to direct your gunners to choose targets based on the tactical outlook. You might have knowledge about a certain NPR that might make different incoming missiles in a wave more/less desirable to shoot at.

It also gets around the whole realism/logic issue of what decision making process the gunners would follow.

Yes, but it also gives the NPR a harder decision, so AI work would be needed as well. Maybe a longer term option.

You can always keep the AI on a fixed logic for the time being.

[Migi]

Question: would it possible to make it optional similar to STOs?

So I could just ask to target by speed, chance to hit or size?

Yes, that is possible.

This is probably the best outcome as it allows you to direct your gunners to choose targets based on the tactical outlook. You might have knowledge about a certain NPR that might make different incoming missiles in a wave more/less desirable to shoot at.

It also gets around the whole realism/logic issue of what decision making process the gunners would follow.

Yes, but it also gives the NPR a harder decision, so AI work would be needed as well. Maybe a longer term option.

I would like to start by mentioning that STO targeting is currently a pain and I made a suggestion to improve it.

For the AI and player the default targeting option should be based on missile size because this is very likely to correlate with warhead size. A size 1 missile almost certainly cannot fit the same warhead as a size 6 or 12 missile.
The secondary sort should probably be missile speed because faster missiles have a better base to-hit chance and are somewhat likely to represent newer technology.
It probably needs some fuzzy logic so that a size 5.999 missile is not ignored due to a size 6.000 missile.*
If the warhead size of all incoming missiles is known then the targeting logic can swap to targeting by warhead size which is probably the most important stat.
I don't know if missile to-hit chance is supposed to be known but it gets shown in the logs. Missile to-hit chance can be used to reverse engineer the manoeuvrer rating and give to-hit chance against a target at any speed.
So the secondary sorting should be to-hit chance against the target, once known.
I think it would be more thorough to multiply to-hit chance and damage to get expected damage per missile, and sort by that value but it depends on whether to-hit and MR are supposed to be known in game.


This is all pretty in-depth and I'm not sure if we are really discussing the original question any more.


*Actually thinking about it you can design and build lots of different missiles by making lots of different research projects for a missile with the same stats. The research cost of this increases linearly by the number of missile types you want to field. Until they hit something the target cannot know which are more important or if they are identical. It might be necessary to treat all missiles of the same (or similar) size as having the same warhead size until demonstrated otherwise.

[xenoscepter]

 - Could we maybe have missile Agility contribute to evasion chance?  That way we could make highly evasive missiles.

BTW: I miss my Armored Torpedoes...

[TheTalkingMeowth]

- Could we maybe have missile Agility contribute to evasion chance?  That way we could make highly evasive missiles.

BTW: I miss my Armored Torpedoes...

I really think making agility contribute to missile evasion would be a good change (and have written on this elsewhere). However, it's a major balance change and would also make the issue currently being discussed (how to prioritize targeting for PD and AMMs) even harder.

[Zap0]

- Could we maybe have missile Agility contribute to evasion chance?  That way we could make highly evasive missiles.

I really think making agility contribute to missile evasion would be a good change (and have written on this elsewhere).

If missile agility was a boon to both to-hit and to-dodge, you'd always want to have whatever the optimal ratio for your missile is. As it is currently it's a decision between spending tonnage on improving to-hit or spending it elsewhere, mainly to-dodge.

[xenoscepter]

- Could we maybe have missile Agility contribute to evasion chance?  That way we could make highly evasive missiles.

I really think making agility contribute to missile evasion would be a good change (and have written on this elsewhere).

If missile agility was a boon to both to-hit and to-dodge, you'd always want to have whatever the optimal ratio for your missile is. As it is currently it's a decision between spending tonnage on improving to-hit or spending it elsewhere, mainly to-dodge.

 - Ya know, that's true.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

You would need to introduce non-linearity in the effects of agility if that change were made. That's why it's so out of scope.

Basically, if agility represented the transverse acceleration capacity of the missile, you could use results from missile guidance theory to determine hit chance in a way that is nonlinear and creates interesting design choices, since accuracy would now vary against different size targets (among other things).