i havent used enough missiles to know alot about them, but i can make a few suggestions how they could be nerfed.
frist the next patch could change alot about missiles, the way engines work is going to be changed. so its not the best point to speak about additional missile changes.
not saying thouse are good ways to nerf them, but options how it could work or not.
You don't have to nerf smaller missiles, you just have to give people a reason to use larger missiles.
1. Missiles could get a lock-on timer for their targets, depending how long it is, it probably wouldn't hurt them at all. Even PD missiles have kind of a high range so if it would take 10 secs to lock-on, they would still be lunched in time.
A lock on timer would be good, especially since there is a tech very similar to this. The +20% target tracking against missiles could be used against all targets, or, used against targets the resolution can track. A resolution one fire control would be able to track missiles, a level two would be able to track small fighters and so on. I'm not sure if it should be generic (IE TL3= 10 secs, TL4= 5 secs).
2. Missile fuel consumption could be increased, resulting in larger fuel tanks in missiles reducing overall stats of missiles.
Steve has said he is staying away from generic definitions, instead opting for a more universal approach. I believe the fuel cost for missiles is logarithmic, meaning exponential flipped sideways, so larger engines will have better fuel economy than larger ones.
3. PD missiles have a very high to-hit chance compared to other weapons (over 10k fire range to-hit), but are probably much slower then those - lasers beam have the speed of light, meson/railgun/gauss are all instant hit weapons too. In addition I think missiles have more than one chance to intercept if they are faster than the targeted missile?
So you want to nerf AMMs by making them have a better chance to hit?
4. The range of missile fire controls could be reduced. I do not think it would change a lot as people would just use larger FCs, so it gets just a bit more expensive.
Most of the time FC is about 4x longer distance than the missile it's controlling. This is used by some players to avoid requiring ECCM. I do not think this will be looked at until Steve starts messing with Electronic Warfare.
5. PD missiles could be nerfed with reducing the range of "missile" sensors - later detection means fewer chances to fire PD missiles, but would not effect different PD weapons, those don't have a range of several million kilometres.
Currently there is only one "missile sensor" size, resolution 1. If there could be multiple sizes between 0-10 (0-500 tonnes), then maybe the sensors could be better balanced. The main problem with PD sensors and fire controls is that a 50 tonne sensor can effectively be a universal sensor on most ships, allowing you to put one on every ship with ease.
6. Magazines and/or missile launchers could be specialized to a type of missile. This would mean you would no longer be able to change your old missiles to new ones, reduce the use of older missile ships a lot, and force the player to upgrade the launchers.
IRL, missile launchers and torpedo launchers of certain countries are different calibres. Usually, but not always, the weapon is designed with a certain calibre in mind so the old launcher can be used multiple times without having to research, design and retrofit every missile launcher in existence. While you should not be able to completely copy an enemy design and put them in your missile tubes, I believe all of your missile designs would be compatible with your own launchers. A size 3 missile should fit all of your launchers >3, with sabots.
7. The production time of missiles, not the costs, should be increased.
Miniaturization should be calculated in Aurora. A smaller missile would be harder to create than larger one. A larger missile would be more expensive and take longer to build, but should require less complex manufacturing and assembly processes. A larger missile could be manufactured in components and assembled, requiring less time per tonne to complete. Unlike your suggestion, the cost in wealth should also be reduced. A larger and therefor simpler missile would require fewer people per tonne to assemble, with overall less specialized training required, hence lower wage costs.
This is something I put in Astra Imperia, and sort of adapted from SFB. Sensors, or in the case of Aurora, missile fire controls have channels. The number of channels being the number of missiles that the ship could control. Obviously, this would be an upgradeable tech line. Question is, apply it to beam fire control? In AI, channels are used to control outbound missiles, incoming missiles, and target ships. Once you are out of channels, you cannot target a new ship/missile salvo, or guide your own missiles. Of course, when a channel is freed up by missiles getting destroyed, or a ship being destroyed or otherwise removed from the target pool, you can then assign the channel to something else.
I'm not proposing anything that complicated, just something to limit the number of missiles in flight. AMM MFC would probably end up designed with higher channels to account for the greater number of missiles fired, while offensive MFC would have less channels. This leads to the idea of a controller ship, with lots of MFC channels to control a large number of missiles.
I like this idea. It's very much like Dangerous Waters and their sensor GRAMs and CHANs. A larger missile with the same fire control as a smaller missile will require the same amount of GRAMs in order to operate. A more "Complex" missile fire control would require a larger amount of limited GRAMs, while a larger missile could have require fewer GRAMs (It would have more internal space for it's own sensors, freeing up shipboard controls for more missiles). CHAN or channels would be the maximum number of missiles control by the ship, no matter how small that control may be.
Another future option could have EW being able to reduce the range of channels that you may operate at once, resulting in you being able to fire fewer ship guided missiles at the enemy. EX: If the enemy is jamming or flooding the 50 MHz to 120 MHz ranges, then signals cannot be transmitted in that range, unless your fire control has a VERY large antennae.
Dangerous Waters Tutorial - Bouys
feature=BFa&list=UL6Ga7e-XNeDQ
I'd recommend getting the game. It's very realistic but a little dated.
Adding to the conversation above:
8. A larger missile would be able to cover a larger area with armour, and could house shielding or larger warheads, for a slightly higher cost than a smaller missile.
