Point defense calculation

[jfelten]

For the short term game the beam race must govern the research with the assumption that missiles exist and must be countered.  To this end tech for PD must be advanced first above propulsion.  (beam tracking speed and turret tracking speed).  Propulsion shouldn't be ignored since ship speed is a major factor in initiative.  Sensors should not be ingnored either, you have to be able to detect the incoming missiles far enough out to with passives so that you can fireup your actives in time.

As I understand it, if the weapons is turreted then the turret rotation speed is compared to the missile speed.  But if not turreted then the ship's speed is compared to the missile speed.  Since it is easier to increase the turret speed, turrets are the way to go with PD weapons?  

Which passives do you use for detecting missiles?  Thermal to detect their drives?  And how much range do you need?  

Never use GC's for area defense.  If you have the research funds available turret mounted 10cm lasers with capacitor 3(for a 5sec cyclic rate) work well for an area defense layer.

Why never use GC's for area defense?  

This has worked quite well for me in the early game.  The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds.  For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.

Can't you just keep cranking up the turret speed at the cost of additional mass?  

[
The most effective way, that I've found, to deploy PD turrets is a minimum of one per combat ship.  Light units have singles while the largest hulls, ideally, mount quads with the units in between having dual and triple turrets.  The exception being dedicated escorts having the next size up of the GC turret as well as the area defense turret(s)./quote]

I am concerned about the ability of missile ships to empty their magazines while all the missiles loiter until together in one huge swarm.  That could easily total hundreds of missiles and I can't see mounting enough PD shots to thin such a missile swarm out much.  Why use box launchers when you can do the missile swarm trick?  The missile ships can just run away while building the missile swarm.  Even if your beam ships are faster by sacrificing extra tonnage to engines, they won't be faster enough to get within beam range before all the missiles have been launched as far as I can tell.  

Of course if your primary enemy is a beam not missile race you could be in trouble with too much mass dedicated to missile defense.

Can't the PDF weapons just shoot at the enemy ships then?

[Erik L (OP)]

This has worked quite well for me in the early game.  The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds.  For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.

Can't you just keep cranking up the turret speed at the cost of additional mass?  

At some point the turret mass will no longer be cost effective. Consider the following.

Code: [Select]

Quad 12cm C4 Far X-Ray Laser Turret
Damage Output 4x4      Rate of Fire: 5 seconds     Range Modifier: 8
Max Range 320,000 km    Turret Size: 22    Armour: 0    Turret HTK: 8
Power Requirement: 16    Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 16
Cost: 286    Crew: 160
Maximum Tracking Speed: 32000km/s

Code: [Select]

Quad Gauss Cannon R5-100 Turret
Damage Output 1x20      Rate of Fire: 5 seconds     Range Modifier: 5
Max Range 50,000 km    Turret Size: 32    Armour: 0    Turret HTK: 8
Cost: 280    Crew: 96
Maximum Tracking Speed: 32000km/sLaser is 22 hull, Gauss Cannon is 32 hull. Both have a rotational speed of 32,000 km/s (based on the max fire control).

For 32 hull, I can mount 16 of these.

Code: [Select]

Maximum Missile Size: 2     Rate of Fire: 10 seconds
Launcher Size: 2    Launcher HTK: 1
Cost Per Launcher: 22    Crew Per Launcher: 2016 shots to 4. Okay, comparing RoF, 16 shots to 8. The laser needs a power plant, so assume another 5 hull for that. 27 hull for the laser/power situation. Still 13 AM-Missile launchers for the size. Of course, you need magazines.

How about this

Code: [Select]

Maximum Missile Size: 1     Rate of Fire: 5 seconds
Launcher Size: 1    Launcher HTK: 0
Cost Per Launcher: 16.5    Crew Per Launcher: 10
Put in these missiles.

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 2 MSP  (0.1 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 82
Speed: 32000 km/s    Endurance: 94 minutes   Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.1167
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2624%   3k km/s 820%   5k km/s 524.8%   10k km/s 262.4%You'll notice the range is over 500 times the max range of the laser, and 3600 times the range of the GC. Of course, this is also assuming you have the electronics to back this up. Firing at the following missiles

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 8 MSP  (0.4 HS)     Warhead: 48    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 32000 km/s    Endurance: 94 minutes   Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 16.2667
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 320%   3k km/s 100%   5k km/s 64%   10k km/s 32% You are still talking about an 82% chance to hit.
Same RoF as the turrets. And you can cram in 20-30 times the number in the same space. Assuming you are going to replace the GC turret with missiles. Go 20 AM-launchers, and 4 magazines. 200 AM missiles for defense in that scenario.

Of course, neither the laser or the GC will run out of ammo.

[Charlie Beeler]

For the short term game the beam race must govern the research with the assumption that missiles exist and must be countered.  To this end tech for PD must be advanced first above propulsion.  (beam tracking speed and turret tracking speed).  Propulsion shouldn't be ignored since ship speed is a major factor in initiative.  Sensors should not be ingnored either, you have to be able to detect the incoming missiles far enough out to with passives so that you can fireup your actives in time.

As I understand it, if the weapons is turreted then the turret rotation speed is compared to the missile speed.  But if not turreted then the ship's speed is compared to the missile speed.  Since it is easier to increase the turret speed, turrets are the way to go with PD weapons?  

In my opinion yes.  But you also need a fire control with sufficient speed as well.

Which passives do you use for detecting missiles?  Thermal to detect their drives?  And how much range do you need?  

Thermals.  The tricky part is having them sensative enough to detect the missiles in time.  A fleet scout with a large array is usually my ideal choice.  

Never use GC's for area defense.  If you have the research funds available turret mounted 10cm lasers with capacitor 3(for a 5sec cyclic rate) work well for an area defense layer.

Why never use GC's for area defense?

Range.  Even at max GC's don't really reach past point blank range.  
 

This has worked quite well for me in the early game.  The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds.  For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.

Can't you just keep cranking up the turret speed at the cost of additional mass?

If you don't have a corrisponding fire control it's just a waste of mass.  

The most effective way, that I've found, to deploy PD turrets is a minimum of one per combat ship.  Light units have singles while the largest hulls, ideally, mount quads with the units in between having dual and triple turrets.  The exception being dedicated escorts having the next size up of the GC turret as well as the area defense turret(s).

I am concerned about the ability of missile ships to empty their magazines while all the missiles loiter until together in one huge swarm.  That could easily total hundreds of missiles and I can't see mounting enough PD shots to thin such a missile swarm out much.  Why use box launchers when you can do the missile swarm trick?  The missile ships can just run away while building the missile swarm.  Even if your beam ships are faster by sacrificing extra tonnage to engines, they won't be faster enough to get within beam range before all the missiles have been launched as far as I can tell.

That's a valid concern.  How you deal with it is vary situational.  Who saw whom first?  Who as the speed advantage?  What's the range?  Is the beam race relying on just final defense turrets or a layered set of area turrets as well?  Is the battle mobile or pinned to a strategic location? What is the missile races stores of missile like?  etc etc etc

Missile loiter can be a 2 edged weapon.  It does allow for large waves.  It can mask where they were launched from.  But if the launcher has too small a magazine capacity they can be left vulnerable.  

Of course if your primary enemy is a beam not missile race you could be in trouble with too much mass dedicated to missile defense.

Can't the PDF weapons just shoot at the enemy ships then?

Only if you can get close enough.

Another, albet expensive, route for a beam race is fighters.  Fast fighters.

[Charlie Beeler]

This has worked quite well for me in the early game.  The reason I say this is that propulsion tech can and will outstrip your ability to maintain effective tracking speeds.  For the long game you still need light/fast anti-missiles to counter salvos.

Can't you just keep cranking up the turret speed at the cost of additional mass?  

At some point the turret mass will no longer be cost effective. Consider the following.

Code: [Select]

Quad 12cm C4 Far X-Ray Laser Turret
Damage Output 4x4      Rate of Fire: 5 seconds     Range Modifier: 8
Max Range 320,000 km    Turret Size: 22    Armour: 0    Turret HTK: 8
Power Requirement: 16    Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 16
Cost: 286    Crew: 160
Maximum Tracking Speed: 32000km/s

Code: [Select]

Quad Gauss Cannon R5-100 Turret
Damage Output 1x20      Rate of Fire: 5 seconds     Range Modifier: 5
Max Range 50,000 km    Turret Size: 32    Armour: 0    Turret HTK: 8
Cost: 280    Crew: 96
Maximum Tracking Speed: 32000km/sLaser is 22 hull, Gauss Cannon is 32 hull. Both have a rotational speed of 32,000 km/s (based on the max fire control).

For 32 hull, I can mount 16 of these.

Code: [Select]

Maximum Missile Size: 2     Rate of Fire: 10 seconds
Launcher Size: 2    Launcher HTK: 1
Cost Per Launcher: 22    Crew Per Launcher: 2016 shots to 4. Okay, comparing RoF, 16 shots to 8. The laser needs a power plant, so assume another 5 hull for that. 27 hull for the laser/power situation. Still 13 AM-Missile launchers for the size. Of course, you need magazines.

How about this

Code: [Select]

Maximum Missile Size: 1     Rate of Fire: 5 seconds
Launcher Size: 1    Launcher HTK: 0
Cost Per Launcher: 16.5    Crew Per Launcher: 10
Put in these missiles.

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 2 MSP  (0.1 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 82
Speed: 32000 km/s    Endurance: 94 minutes   Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.1167
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2624%   3k km/s 820%   5k km/s 524.8%   10k km/s 262.4%You'll notice the range is over 500 times the max range of the laser, and 3600 times the range of the GC. Of course, this is also assuming you have the electronics to back this up. Firing at the following missiles

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 8 MSP  (0.4 HS)     Warhead: 48    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 32000 km/s    Endurance: 94 minutes   Range: 180.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 16.2667
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 320%   3k km/s 100%   5k km/s 64%   10k km/s 32% You are still talking about an 82% chance to hit.
Same RoF as the turrets. And you can cram in 20-30 times the number in the same space. Assuming you are going to replace the GC turret with missiles. Go 20 AM-launchers, and 4 magazines. 200 AM missiles for defense in that scenario.

Of course, neither the laser or the GC will run out of ammo.

Don't overlook that the above GC turret has 20 shots at a single salvo.  My preference is too not add the extra range to the GC and leave it for final defensive fire.  That laser turret makes a good area defense system.  If the ship(s) are able to force the missiles into a stern chase the lasers could get 2 or more shots at the incoming salvos depending of the ships speed.  As pointed out, active sensors that can see the missiles and a fire control that is up to the job are neccessary or it's just wasted mass.

IMO those missiles are overkill for the defense role.  Single space counter missiles are effective enough for me.  You ussually can't see the incoming missiles far enough out to use all that range.  Unless of course that additional space is needed for enough engine to at least match, if not gain advantage, speed with the incoming.

[Erik L (OP)]

Don't overlook that the above GC turret has 20 shots at a single salvo.  My preference is too not add the extra range to the GC and leave it for final defensive fire.  That laser turret makes a good area defense system.  If the ship(s) are able to force the missiles into a stern chase the lasers could get 2 or more shots at the incoming salvos depending of the ships speed.  As pointed out, active sensors that can see the missiles and a fire control that is up to the job are neccessary or it's just wasted mass.

IMO those missiles are overkill for the defense role.  Single space counter missiles are effective enough for me.  You ussually can't see the incoming missiles far enough out to use all that range.  Unless of course that additional space is needed for enough engine to at least match, if not gain advantage, speed with the incoming.

The size 8 missiles are intended as an example of offensive missiles, not AM

20 shots at 50,000 km. Compared to 20 shots at 180,000,000 km.

I agree the GC is very well qualified for last-ditch point blank efforts, but if you want to stop the missiles from ever getting to that, you'll need a longer reach. Lasers, Railguns or countermissiles.

[Charlie Beeler]

Don't overlook that the above GC turret has 20 shots at a single salvo.  My preference is too not add the extra range to the GC and leave it for final defensive fire.  That laser turret makes a good area defense system.  If the ship(s) are able to force the missiles into a stern chase the lasers could get 2 or more shots at the incoming salvos depending of the ships speed.  As pointed out, active sensors that can see the missiles and a fire control that is up to the job are neccessary or it's just wasted mass.

IMO those missiles are overkill for the defense role.  Single space counter missiles are effective enough for me.  You ussually can't see the incoming missiles far enough out to use all that range.  Unless of course that additional space is needed for enough engine to at least match, if not gain advantage, speed with the incoming.

The size 8 missiles are intended as an example of offensive missiles, not AM

20 shots at 50,000 km. Compared to 20 shots at 180,000,000 km.

I agree the GC is very well qualified for last-ditch point blank efforts, but if you want to stop the missiles from ever getting to that, you'll need a longer reach. Lasers, Railguns or countermissiles.

Sorry,  I ment to reference the size 2 counter missile.  

After the early game railguns are no longer effective for missile defense, can't be turret mounted.

I left counter missiles mostly out of my primary reply to jfelten since he was asking if beam only ships had a chance against missile ships.  too that point a mix of laser turrets for ranged area defense and GC turrets for final defense are the best options I've used.  But your correct, for the best layered defense counter missiles are a must.  

After the early game missile races gain a huge advantage since missile speed easily out paces fire control and turret tracking speeds.  At that point the beam races had better at least deployed fast counter missiles so that their ships can wade in close enough to bring the main batteries too bare.  

I haven't done much with thermal reduction and cloaks yet to see if they are a viable option for beam races.  I've done some thermal reduction for fighters with mixed results for ambushes.

[Erik L (OP)]

Sorry,  I ment to reference the size 2 counter missile.  

After the early game railguns are no longer effective for missile defense, can't be turret mounted.

I left counter missiles mostly out of my primary reply to jfelten since he was asking if beam only ships had a chance against missile ships.  too that point a mix of laser turrets for ranged area defense and GC turrets for final defense are the best options I've used.  But your correct, for the best layered defense counter missiles are a must.  

After the early game missile races gain a huge advantage since missile speed easily out paces fire control and turret tracking speeds.  At that point the beam races had better at least deployed fast counter missiles so that their ships can wade in close enough to bring the main batteries too bare.  

I haven't done much with thermal reduction and cloaks yet to see if they are a viable option for beam races.  I've done some thermal reduction for fighters with mixed results for ambushes.

The only reason I can see for size 2 missiles are for increased agility. Hmmm, here's a thought.

Combine this as a submunition

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 2 MSP  (0.1 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 82
Speed: 16000 km/s    Endurance: 94 minutes   Range: 90.0m km
Active Sensor Strength: 1.5    Resolution: 1    Maximum Range: 15,000 km    
Cost Per Missile: 4.0833
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1312%   3k km/s 410%   5k km/s 262.4%   10k km/s 131.2%Into this carrier

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 10700 km/s    Endurance: 281 minutes   Range: 180.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 18.4665
Second Stage: AM-Sub1 x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 150000 km
Overall Endurance: 6 hours   Overall Range: 270.6m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 107%   3k km/s 30%   5k km/s 21.4%   10k km/s 10.7%Yes, it is size 12. But, you've got a stand-off countermissile range of 270m km. The sub-munitions include an active sensor for tracking at the separation range. Actually, you could probably swap most of the fuel in the submunition to engine.

Layer these with shorter ranged countermissiles, laser batteries for medium area defense and GC for close-in last ditch.

As for the cloak/thermal mask. If you can't see it, you can't shoot at it. That might help a beam armed fleet get within range of the missile boats.

[Charlie Beeler]

Sorry,  I ment to reference the size 2 counter missile.  

After the early game railguns are no longer effective for missile defense, can't be turret mounted.

I left counter missiles mostly out of my primary reply to jfelten since he was asking if beam only ships had a chance against missile ships.  too that point a mix of laser turrets for ranged area defense and GC turrets for final defense are the best options I've used.  But your correct, for the best layered defense counter missiles are a must.  

After the early game missile races gain a huge advantage since missile speed easily out paces fire control and turret tracking speeds.  At that point the beam races had better at least deployed fast counter missiles so that their ships can wade in close enough to bring the main batteries too bare.  

I haven't done much with thermal reduction and cloaks yet to see if they are a viable option for beam races.  I've done some thermal reduction for fighters with mixed results for ambushes.

The only reason I can see for size 2 missiles are for increased agility. Hmmm, here's a thought.

Combine this as a submunition

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 2 MSP  (0.1 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 82
Speed: 16000 km/s    Endurance: 94 minutes   Range: 90.0m km
Active Sensor Strength: 1.5    Resolution: 1    Maximum Range: 15,000 km    
Cost Per Missile: 4.0833
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1312%   3k km/s 410%   5k km/s 262.4%   10k km/s 131.2%Into this carrier

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 10700 km/s    Endurance: 281 minutes   Range: 180.6m km
Cost Per Missile: 18.4665
Second Stage: AM-Sub1 x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 150000 km
Overall Endurance: 6 hours   Overall Range: 270.6m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 107%   3k km/s 30%   5k km/s 21.4%   10k km/s 10.7%Yes, it is size 12. But, you've got a stand-off countermissile range of 270m km. The sub-munitions include an active sensor for tracking at the separation range. Actually, you could probably swap most of the fuel in the submunition to engine.

Layer these with shorter ranged countermissiles, laser batteries for medium area defense and GC for close-in last ditch.

As for the cloak/thermal mask. If you can't see it, you can't shoot at it. That might help a beam armed fleet get within range of the missile boats.

That's an idea to start with.  Like my ad hoc designs, those have issues.  

[Brian Neumann]

I have played around with cloaking tech.  Even a basic level of reduction does wonders for making it possible to get in close.  This is because it changes the radar cross-section of the unit it is mounted on.  The most basic level of cloak reduces the cross-section by 3/4.  If someone actually has the points to reasearch this line then it will probably be more like 85% reduction.  That takes a 100hs ship down to a cross-section of 15.  I don't know about you but unless I know there is a threat at that size my long range radars tend to be at the 18-20hs size.  The drawback is that unless you have a huge amount of reasearch to put in to the size multiplier, the cloak will eat up an incredible portion of your tonnage.  For starters think of it as a fairly early generation jump dirve to get an idea.

The nice thing is that it does work fairly well.  Combine it with a slow speed and not having shields up and you are talking about a very hard to detect target.  The down side is that once someone knows about the possibility it is not to hard to retrofit the scouts with a large enough radar to still spot you at a good distance for missiles.  It will be very obvious however what you are doing.

Hope that helps you

Brian

[Erik L (OP)]

I have played around with cloaking tech.  Even a basic level of reduction does wonders for making it possible to get in close.  This is because it changes the radar cross-section of the unit it is mounted on.  The most basic level of cloak reduces the cross-section by 3/4.  If someone actually has the points to reasearch this line then it will probably be more like 85% reduction.  That takes a 100hs ship down to a cross-section of 15.  I don't know about you but unless I know there is a threat at that size my long range radars tend to be at the 18-20hs size.  The drawback is that unless you have a huge amount of reasearch to put in to the size multiplier, the cloak will eat up an incredible portion of your tonnage.  For starters think of it as a fairly early generation jump dirve to get an idea.

The nice thing is that it does work fairly well.  Combine it with a slow speed and not having shields up and you are talking about a very hard to detect target.  The down side is that once someone knows about the possibility it is not to hard to retrofit the scouts with a large enough radar to still spot you at a good distance for missiles.  It will be very obvious however what you are doing.

Hope that helps you

Brian

A good reason for dedicated ship types.

Back in the day, playing MOO2 with my roommate, he could never understand why my fleets beat his. He went for the "Enterprise" design, one ship does it all. I went for a "naval" design with dedicated carriers, escorts and scouts. He couldn't understand why or how my smaller ships were defeating his larger ones. The only time this broke down was when the fleets consisted of the death star ships.

So I am a firm believer of dedicated scouts to find those pesky stealthed ships.

[Brian Neumann]

A good reason for dedicated ship types.

Back in the day, playing MOO2 with my roommate, he could never understand why my fleets beat his. He went for the "Enterprise" design, one ship does it all. I went for a "naval" design with dedicated carriers, escorts and scouts. He couldn't understand why or how my smaller ships were defeating his larger ones. The only time this broke down was when the fleets consisted of the death star ships.

So I am a firm believer of dedicated scouts to find those pesky stealthed ships.

From everything I have seen in this game, keeping ships tightly focused does tend to work better.  The only exception is if you plan on having a particular class out on extended patrols without backup.  In that case they need to have a better sensor set so they don't run into trouble that they didn't even see.  For actual fleet operations having a couple of scouts which have turned in thier offensive weapons for really big sensor arrays works wonders.  It allows for the other ships in a fleet to keep thier sensor to a bare minimum needed for weapons control.  This in turn lets you put in more weapons or defences etc.  I will admit that I often equip my biggest ships a little more lavishly in the sensor department than this would indicate, but that is partially so they have some redundant systems as well.

Brian

[Kurt]

It is going to take me a lot of time to get enough experience with the combat system to form solid conclusions.  So for now I'll ask you.  In your opinion/experience, given equal investments in research points and resources, can a non-missile fleet mount enough effective PD to survive a missile fleet's missile strike and still have enough direct fire weapons and close with them to have a fair chance of winning a battle?  I can see the non-missile fleet will start at a disadvantage.  The missile fleet gets to hit first.  And unless the missile fleet is defending a fixed location, the beam fleet will have to dedicate enough technology and additional resources to be faster than the missile fleet else they'll never be able to close to engage.  Otherwise the missile fleet would be able to do what damage they can then retreat to reload.  Obviously there are a lot of variables and no such thing as perfect balance, but is it close?

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.  

Kurt

[jfelten]

I tried creating some test designs with my test race last night including a one space anti-missile missile.  This is from memory so pardon any inconsistencies.  IIRC I researched the 2nd level warhead so I could use a half space warhead and still generate the 1 point of damage necessary to kill other missiles thereby making a 1 space AMM viable.  One thing I ran in to was that even just using 0.1 spaces of fuel, it still had a range of something like 25Mk.  But the longest range missile fire control sensor I could design with zero resolution (or whatever the best is called) to detect enemy missiles but still keep it down to a "reasonable" size only had a range of 6Mk.  I need to go back and figure out what to research to improve missile fire control sensor range as I suspect the farther out I can target the missiles with AMM's, the more chances I have to intercept them.  It is important to try to keep the size down so all ships can mount some AMM ability.  Dedicated escorts can of course mount clusters of them but I think all warships should have some innate AMM capability if going that route.

I'm not sure how the missile accuracy calculation works.  I tried trading off engine space (speed) for agility but it seemed that more speed always resulted in better accuracy than the same amount of space dedicated to agility.  I'm guessing this is because my test race has researched missile speed more than missile agility so the speed tech is better than the agility tech.  But I don't know what the actual equation is.  Also I'm not sure what the accuracy is vs enemy missiles.  The little accuracy chart in the missile design window doesn't list that but judging by the size brackets and assuming it is linear, the chance of actually intercepting a missile that weighs relatively little would be extremely poor.  

What I also realized was that in order to design good AMM's to intercept the high tech missiles of a missile centric opponent seems to require dedicating nearly as much research in to missile techs as the missile centric opponent does.  So the beam centric race is going to be at a large research disadvantage.  To deploy effective AMM"s they have to dedicate about as much research in to missile techs as the missile centric race (in which case they could just deploy anti ship missiles too), then they also have to heavily research their beam weapons which the missile centric race doesn't have to research.  So it seems to me just looking at the surface that will put the beam race at a marked disadvantage overall.  However I've not actually tried to verify this in practice and there are a lot of variables to consider.

[Brian Neumann]

AMM missiles are not quite as bad as you are thinking to reasearch.  It helps to get a little farther up the warhead tree.  At 8000 rp the warhead is only .2 spaces.  You can also put in really small amounts of fuel.  I usually use .01.  I split the rest between engines and agility about 2-1 in favor of the engines.  You are right that more engines do help to get the to hit chance up, but a small increase in agility also has a major effect.  On the missile design screen you will see an agility on the left side of the missile stats near the top.  That is the chance the missile will hit a target going at the same speed it is going.  As the base chance is 10%, having .1 spaces in agility tends to get you a 15% chance.  That is effectivly 50% better than before.  My current amm using ion engines have a 1 point warhead speed of 28300 range of 3m km and about a 25% chance to hit.  Against my own attack missiles which are moving at 24000 km/s they are closer to 30%.  Even if someone had reasearched another level of engines and had a speed of around 32000km/s I would still be getting around a 20% chance per amm.  The hard part is actually spotting the incomming missiles far enough out to get multiple shots, and that is a function of sensor tech.  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.

Brian

[jfelten]

> 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?