Point defense calculation

[Brian Neumann]

You might want to consider having the better to hit apply over and above the weapons base tracking speed.  If the base tracking speed of the weapon is worse than the fire control tracking speed have it use the % improvement based on the weapons tracking.  This would help non turreted weapons but at approximately 1/3-1/4 the bonus that the fire control would get.

Brian

[Steve Walmsley]

You might want to consider having the better to hit apply over and above the weapons base tracking speed.  If the base tracking speed of the weapon is worse than the fire control tracking speed have it use the % improvement based on the weapons tracking.  This would help non turreted weapons but at approximately 1/3-1/4 the bonus that the fire control would get.

The weapon tracking is a physical limitation on its ability rather than one based on electronics and software. If the ship can't turn fast enough or the turret rotate fast enough then being able to see the threat coming for longer isn't as useful. With software, it can work out a better targeting solution. I know this is stretching things a little because the game doesn't model turning rates, etc but its the principle. Anti-missile beam weapons are realistically going to have to be in turrets, with the possible exception of railguns. Easing the penalty suffered by railguns (which can't use turrets) would make them a very good anti-missile weapon.

Steve

[Brian Neumann]

You might want to consider having the better to hit apply over and above the weapons base tracking speed.  If the base tracking speed of the weapon is worse than the fire control tracking speed have it use the % improvement based on the weapons tracking.  This would help non turreted weapons but at approximately 1/3-1/4 the bonus that the fire control would get.

The weapon tracking is a physical limitation on its ability rather than one based on electronics and software. If the ship can't turn fast enough or the turret rotate fast enough then being able to see the threat coming for longer isn't as useful. With software, it can work out a better targeting solution. I know this is stretching things a little because the game doesn't model turning rates, etc but its the principle. Anti-missile beam weapons are realistically going to have to be in turrets, with the possible exception of railguns. Easing the penalty suffered by railguns (which can't use turrets) would make them a very good anti-missile weapon.

Steve

Where I am coming from is that with the extended time to track also comes an extended time to bring the ship around to fire on the predicted point better.  This will not be as good as having a turret to help with the tracking speed but it should give some advantage

Brian

[Kurt]

I'm not seeing it here (if it was ever posted), but what is the formula for calculating PD?

Max tech Fire Control has a maximum tracking speed of 80,000km/s. Max tech missile speed is c. What are the chances of using anything other than missiles at this level?

Max Tech Fire Control

Code: [Select]

50% Accuracy at Range: 700,000 km     Tracking Speed: 80000 km/s
Size: 16    HTK: 1    Cost: 8400    Crew: 80
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 10%
Materials Required: 2100x Duranium  6300x Uridium

Development Cost for Project: 84000RP

Max Tech Missile v1

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 16.5 MSP  (0.825 HS)     Warhead: 67    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 300000 km/s    Endurance: 10 minutes   Range: 189.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 99.8333
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3000%   3k km/s 1000%   5k km/s 600%   10k km/s 300%
Materials Required:    16.75x Tritanium   83.0833x Gallicite   Fuel x4375

Development Cost for Project: 9983RP


Okay, this raises a question.  Should any ship be able to shoot down a missile going the speed of light?  How would you detect something like that?  That answer is, short of FTL sensors, you wouldn't be able to detect it until the same time as it hit, because it is pacing the light that would reveal its position.  

If a ship can shoot down a missile traveling the speed of light, then why can't it shoot down a torpedo?

Kurt

[Erik L (OP)]

Okay, this raises a question.  Should any ship be able to shoot down a missile going the speed of light?  How would you detect something like that?  That answer is, short of FTL sensors, you wouldn't be able to detect it until the same time as it hit, because it is pacing the light that would reveal its position.  

If a ship can shoot down a missile traveling the speed of light, then why can't it shoot down a torpedo?

Kurt

Maybe instead of missile top speed being 300,000km/s, they should be lower? Say 200,000km/s? That's still faster than any ship or fighter I've been able to design by a factor of 4 or so.

[Brian Neumann]

I don't know if this is doable but a combined beam fire control and radar system.  Fix the size of the radar to .1HS and automatically have a .25 range, x4 speed beam control.  Give the combined package a better tracking speed as a base.  It will be myopic to put it mildly but it would give a very last ditch fire control.  I would also suggest that whatever bonus to speed you decide, you also make a modifier on the size of the unit.  double the tracking speed, double then round up the size of the unit or some such.  If the entire system is self contained and not able to use the tracking from other sources it becomes an alternative way to get a beam pd weapon.  I don't know if this is doable however as to work it would need to not be able to fire at targets detected by other systems.  A good real world example is the phalanx system on most US warships.  The entire unit is selfcontained and does not work off of the ships main radar system.

Brian

PS maybe have the firecontrol have to be dedicated to a single turret.  no other weapon can use it's bonus.

[Steve Walmsley]

So the combination of ideas gives us an ability for fire control systems to offset a tracking-speed penalty if they can observe the target over time. The ability for the fire control to do that would be limited by a new tech line for fire control system. This will generally aid anti-missile combat more than anti-ship combat because it is much more likely that fire controls will suffer a tracking-speed penalty against missiles than against ships? Actual numbers yet to be determined but does that sum up the general idea?

I am adding this to v3.2 and starting to run into a few issues If so, is that a better (and simpler) approach?

I still haven't completely decided on the actual bonus but I am working on 2% per 5 seconds at the moment (24% for a minute). My only concern is that this quickly becomes a very good bonus. Necessary against missiles but possibly too harsh against ships and fighters. I might make it so that rate at which the bonus is gained quickly diminishes to offset that problem.

Steve

[Brian Neumann]

Did any of that make sense? If so, is that a better (and simpler) approach?

I still haven't completely decided on the actual bonus but I am working on 2% per 5 seconds at the moment (24% for a minute). My only concern is that this quickly becomes a very good bonus. Necessary against missiles but possibly too harsh against ships and fighters. I might make it so that rate at which the bonus is gained quickly diminishes to offset that problem.

Steve

Have the bonus reset between firings.  This will help keep the light weapons from to much of an advantage ships and fighters.  Thier first shot will be better but then the bonus goes away.  If you want a heavier weapon to fire on fighters then you are going for a lot of overkill probably.  Heavier, slower firing weapons will still get some bonus as thier would be more than 5 seconds between firings.

Brian

[Erik L (OP)]

Did any of that make sense? If so, is that a better (and simpler) approach?

I still haven't completely decided on the actual bonus but I am working on 2% per 5 seconds at the moment (24% for a minute). My only concern is that this quickly becomes a very good bonus. Necessary against missiles but possibly too harsh against ships and fighters. I might make it so that rate at which the bonus is gained quickly diminishes to offset that problem.

Steve

Have the bonus reset between firings.  This will help keep the light weapons from to much of an advantage ships and fighters.  Thier first shot will be better but then the bonus goes away.  If you want a heavier weapon to fire on fighters then you are going for a lot of overkill probably.  Heavier, slower firing weapons will still get some bonus as thier would be more than 5 seconds between firings.

Brian

That makes sense. Faster firing weapons won't have as long to track, while the slower ones would.

Now does this apply only to beam type weapons? If it applies to missiles, then with their inherently slower fire rate, they'll get some very nice bonuses.

[Brian Neumann]

That makes sense. Faster firing weapons won't have as long to track, while the slower ones would.

Now does this apply only to beam type weapons? If it applies to missiles, then with their inherently slower fire rate, they'll get some very nice bonuses.

This does not apply to missiles as they use a totally different system to determine to hit chance.  Missile fire control only designates the target.  The chance for a missile to hit is based on the speed and agility of the missile vs the target's speed.

Brian

[Charlie Beeler]

Steve you went a different direction that my suggestion intended.  I'm OK with that, after all it is only a suggestion.

That being said...

To use the example of an incoming 20k kps missile being engaged by PD beam weapon with tracking speed 8k kps and fire control of 12k kps.  Weapon ROF is 5seconds.  As pointed out, under current rules there is a to hit penalty created by the differential between the 8k of the weapon and the 20k of the missile.  

The intent was this:  With enough time tracking a specific target (missile, fighter, ship, etc) the penalty created by the differential reduced or eliminated.  To go into an actual bonus should require new tech (maybe some type of improved fire control)

I think the 'mechanics' of how to implement may be to invasive to the existing code though.

As an example from the POV of the user, When setting the PD mode there are additional options to set.  

For area defense you still set the range to start firing, but you also have the ability to set a delay.  The delay gets a reduction of the differential penalty.  When the PD weapon fires one of two things happens:  target is eliminated and the fire control resets and searchs for a new target,  or the target is not eliminated fire control continues to track and reduce teh penalty until the next chance to shoot (delay still functions).  

For final defense there isn't a delay per say.  You set the range for firing, but also set the range to start tracking.  In a similiar manor to the area mode the more time the fire control has assigned the target to the time it fires the speed diffential penalty can be eroded.  But only if the fire control actively tracks the target.

The idea for the area defense could be used for the main beam weapons fire as well.  

Basicly the difference between a snap shot and taking time to aim.  Give the tracking systems more time to develope a better firing solution.

I think the concept is easy to envision,  but I suspect that it would be difficult to incorporate with the existing code.  I suspect that it's to contrary to existing logic to implement without a wholesale rewrite.

[Hawkeye]

Hm, I´m not realy buying into the "longer tracking gives a better fire solution" thing entirely.

I started out thinking about such a bonus against fighters and then thought, "Now wait a sec, those fighters will jinx and zig-zag around all the time, throwing your carefully calculated fireing solution off".

The next thought was: "If those fighters can jinx, I sure should be able to program my missiles to do the same, perhaps reducing their range slightly."

So I am now of the opinion, while you will be able to point your ship roughly into the direction of the incoming salvo, this won´t help you a whole lot, if your weapons(mount) is not able to cope with the rather erratic manouvers, the missiles or fighters will make on the run in.

[Steve Walmsley]

Did any of that make sense? If so, is that a better (and simpler) approach?

I still haven't completely decided on the actual bonus but I am working on 2% per 5 seconds at the moment (24% for a minute). My only concern is that this quickly becomes a very good bonus. Necessary against missiles but possibly too harsh against ships and fighters. I might make it so that rate at which the bonus is gained quickly diminishes to offset that problem.

Have the bonus reset between firings.  This will help keep the light weapons from to much of an advantage ships and fighters.  Thier first shot will be better but then the bonus goes away.  If you want a heavier weapon to fire on fighters then you are going for a lot of overkill probably.  Heavier, slower firing weapons will still get some bonus as thier would be more than 5 seconds between firings.

I can see the sense in that but it would be very difficult to track under the existing combat model. Targetable contacts are tracked by active sensors and program now records the length of time a contact has been continually tracked by those sensors. Fire control systems direct weapons to attack those contacts. If I reset that tracking bonus every time a weapon fired, it would reset it for all weapons. The program doesn't record how long every individual fire control tracks every individual contact because that would be an entire new layer of complexity.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve you went a different direction that my suggestion intended.  I'm OK with that, after all it is only a suggestion.

That being said...

To use the example of an incoming 20k kps missile being engaged by PD beam weapon with tracking speed 8k kps and fire control of 12k kps.  Weapon ROF is 5seconds.  As pointed out, under current rules there is a to hit penalty created by the differential between the 8k of the weapon and the 20k of the missile.  

The intent was this:  With enough time tracking a specific target (missile, fighter, ship, etc) the penalty created by the differential reduced or eliminated.  To go into an actual bonus should require new tech (maybe some type of improved fire control)

Its not a bonus, it's a reduction in the penalty. The "bonus" just increases the effective tracking speed, which reduces the penalty, but if the effective tracking speed was increased beyond that needed to target the missile with no penalty, that extra tracking speed would have no effect. In other words, using the 20k missile salvo, a fire control with a tracking speed of 25k and a fire control with a normal tracking speed of 16k that had been raised to 24k by the tracking time bonus would both engage the missile with no tracking penalty. There would be no advantage or bonus gained by being able to track faster objects.

I think the 'mechanics' of how to implement may be to invasive to the existing code though.

As an example from the POV of the user, When setting the PD mode there are additional options to set.  

For area defense you still set the range to start firing, but you also have the ability to set a delay.  The delay gets a reduction of the differential penalty.  When the PD weapon fires one of two things happens:  target is eliminated and the fire control resets and searchs for a new target,  or the target is not eliminated fire control continues to track and reduce teh penalty until the next chance to shoot (delay still functions).  

For final defense there isn't a delay per say.  You set the range for firing, but also set the range to start tracking.  In a similiar manor to the area mode the more time the fire control has assigned the target to the time it fires the speed diffential penalty can be eroded.  But only if the fire control actively tracks the target.

The idea for the area defense could be used for the main beam weapons fire as well.  

Basicly the difference between a snap shot and taking time to aim.  Give the tracking systems more time to develope a better firing solution.

I think the concept is easy to envision,  but I suspect that it would be difficult to incorporate with the existing code.  I suspect that it's to contrary to existing logic to implement without a wholesale rewrite.

That would be difficult to code as it would require keeping a record of how long every fire control is tracking every contact. At the moment, it is assumed that all ships have some type of FTL datalink and that information can be passed back and forth. If one sensor is tracking a missile than whatever it learns is passed to all other sensors. Even modern warships have these type of capabilities (well, not FTL obviously but the same in principle). I am also a little concerned this might lead to an extra layer of micromanagement during combat as you try and adjust the delays for individual ships

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Hm, I´m not realy buying into the "longer tracking gives a better fire solution" thing entirely.

I started out thinking about such a bonus against fighters and then thought, "Now wait a sec, those fighters will jinx and zig-zag around all the time, throwing your carefully calculated fireing solution off".

The next thought was: "If those fighters can jinx, I sure should be able to program my missiles to do the same, perhaps reducing their range slightly."

So I am now of the opinion, while you will be able to point your ship roughly into the direction of the incoming salvo, this won´t help you a whole lot, if your weapons(mount) is not able to cope with the rather erratic manouvers, the missiles or fighters will make on the run in.

That is a good point. I am also concerned about fire controls getting too much of an advantage against ships and fighters through a tracking time bonus, especially when that element of combat works well at the moment. How about restricting the tracking time bonus just to missiles on the basis that they will generally follow a more predictable path than manned ships or fighters, relying on speed to get them to the target. Observing a ship or fighter over time won't help a great deal in terms of what it might do next but tracking a missile over time will give tracking computers a better idea of when to fire. The thread was begun because of a concern over maximum missile speeds so this would address the primary concern while avoiding any issues with the anti-ship and anti-fighter combat model

Steve