Damage Suggestion - Fixing missiles

[Charlie Beeler]

Let's list the advantages of each:
Large missiles:
Effective warhead increase against armor. Up to ~50% bonus at reasonable sizes.
Fuel decrease. Very significant at long ranges, irrelevant at short.
Sensors. Highly tactical.
Granular allocation efficiency.

Small missiles:
MASSIVE increase in effectiveness against active defenses.

Effectiveness is really situationally dependent.  As in, what are the comparative differences between opposing techs, offensive systems, and defensive systems.  At an even tech and weight of ship the balance point between opposing missile users is the offensive/defensive ratio more than whether one force is using small higher cyclic rate missiles vs large lower cyclic rate missiles.  As the charts posted earlier show, there is actually a slight advantage to the large missile/warhead vs the small missile/warhead when the weight of launcher and magazine is roughly equal.

Don't really see a problem here.

Armor isn't an advantage, you can put it on small missiles too. Agility, same. They're just percentages of the missile.

You might want to review how missile armor functions.  It lends a segnificant advantage to larger missiles.  The reason being smaller missiles really have to trade engine space for the same benefit level larger missiles get from trading warhead space.  Missile armor is currently fixed a 1 point per msp. 

For the most part agility doesn't aid large missiles in the anti-shipping role.  At least not mine.  It's not uncommon for me to have my ASM's at or near a 100% baseline vs the ship speeds I'm encountering.  AMM's are a different story.  Not really an advantage one way or the other, but the counter missile role uses it more often.

One more comment:
Small missiles do NOT equal AMMs. Repeat: Small missiles are NOT always AMMs, they're NOT always 'defensive missiles'. Changes to AMMs don't fix the problem of size 1 ASMs. Now, there are a number of functions small missiles can't really perform. However, outside of those situations (like if you're outranged one way or another), and assuming any significant active defense (what designer doesn't have that?), there's no competition. If you're building a plain short range ASM, it should be size 1. Some people, now including me, think this limits design, and makes the game less fun. Take that as you will.

Hmm  The foundation complaints have revolved around running into Precurser defense bases and thier segnificant salvos of size 1 missiles.  In this case they are AMM's.  In the case of all the NPR's I've looked at in the databases size 1 missiles are exclusively named for defensive roles.  This has been true for several years.  Players have been the only ones proposing purpose designed size 1 missiles in the anti-shipping role.

Funny thing is, haven't really read any battle reports of player v player, much less player v NPR, battles where ASM size 1 missiles have been used.  Only reports of using AMM size 1 missiles in an emergency role for anti-shipping.

Don't really see a problem here.

[Erik L]

Funny thing is, haven't really read any battle reports of player v player, much less player v NPR, battles where ASM size 1 missiles have been used.  Only reports of using AMM size 1 missiles in an emergency role for anti-shipping.

Don't really see a problem here.

I've only used AMM in an anti-shipping role when I fire my ASMs dry and the opfor is nearly dead, or on the ropes.

I've seen precursors use AMM in anti-shipping roles though.

[Rabid_Cog (OP)]

Oh yeah, sorry, my statement about requiring twice the amount of AMMs was a bit of a brainfart. I was referring to the situation of using twice as many size 1 launchers as size 2 launchers, hence twice as many missiles in the air.

In the end, I must admit I am getting more and more convinced that small offensive missiles are okay. Its not that small missiles are overpowered (in fact I read somewhere that somebody doing a ton of math showed that a 4pt WH was the most optimal, not 1pt), but that larger missiles are intercepted wayyyy too easily, and therefore underpowered. But I complain too much.

I do have a question though, Erik, why do you feel that larger launchers need an even slower cycle compared to the smaller ones? And what sizes specifically are you referring too? About size 4 or about size 40?

[Nightstar]

Effectiveness is situational, yes. But relatively, a fast missile is better than a slow one, and several small missiles better than one big one.

"The reason being smaller missiles really have to trade engine space for the same benefit level larger missiles get from trading warhead space."
Mmm, no. At least not if yout have 5/msp warhead tech or better. In any case, 1 point of armor on two missiles is the same armor as 2 points on one missile. It's still not worthwhile on small missiles, but that's because smaller missiles have such high htk/msp to start with.

Agility doesn't help small missiles much in anti-shipping either. Using agility becomes more worthwhile at higher tech levels in general though.

As for who uses size 1 ASMs, that would be me. Tests against the AI have mostly shown that the AI is too stupid to put their res 1 sensors on. Tests against myself show smaller missiles being much better. Practically all of my fleets have lots of active defenses though. Testing against other players has proven problematic.

Eh, none of that matters. Conclusions:

I'm not convinced small missiles are overpowered either. The situation they're clearly superior in (short range, bypassing active defenses), isn't a good situation for missiles. The problem is, they ARE clearly superior in that situation. One clear choice is boring. I'd rather have several, or even have the clear choice be the biggest missiles you can build.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Missile armor doesn't actually scale directly in terms of effectiveness.

If 1 missile hits a size 3, armor 0.5 missile it has a 33% chance of surviving.
If 2 missiles hit a size 6, armor 1 missile it has a 25% chance of surviving.
If 4 missiles hit a size 12, armor 2 missile it has a 20% chance of surviving.
If 6 missiles hit a size 18, armor 3 missile it has a 18% chance of surviving.   

(if 1 missile is shot at 3 size 1s with 0.16 armor... /sighhhh :p)

As you can see, larger missiles are only mildly more vulnerable to AMMs than an equal weight of smaller ASMs. It's only once you go below size 3-4 that the system starts to break down.

In the end, I must admit I am getting more and more convinced that small offensive missiles are okay. Its not that small missiles are overpowered (in fact I read somewhere that somebody doing a ton of math showed that a 4pt WH was the most optimal, not 1pt), but that larger missiles are intercepted wayyyy too easily, and therefore underpowered. But I complain too much.

Task force defenses can generally handle or take out a significant percentage.of MSP4+ missiles from missile groups of similar tech and BP.    In the same scenarios versus size 1-2 missiles, active defense is akin to pissing in the wind.  That missile defense works against larger missiles but not smaller missiles suggests that small missiles are overpowered, rather than larger missiles being underpowered.  I believe most people are against gimping small missiles, (even if you're for gimping AMMs), since a wide variety in viable missile design is a good thing.

What this really kills is beam warships.  AMM Mutually Assured Destruction engagements at 10mkm mean beam ships rarely get a chance to fight.   By their very nature, AMM ships tend to have deep magazines; there's pretty much no downside. 

I'm not convinced small missiles are overpowered either. The situation they're clearly superior in (short range, bypassing active defenses), isn't a good situation for missiles. The problem is, they ARE clearly superior in that situation. One clear choice is boring. I'd rather have several, or even have the clear choice be the biggest missiles you can build.

You can get the best of both worlds with extreme range MIRVS. Design a size 5 high efficiency engine and put it on like a size 15-16 missile.  Tada, long range with a payload of 7-8 MSP of short range attack missiles. 

[Jorgen_CAB]

One problem with armour though is that values lower than 1 is currently not working. I have actually tested this. I think it is suppose to work but it doesn't. So I always use whole numbers of armour since I'm not sure fractions work at all.

And in bigger missiles you can gladly sacrifice some engine (speed) to add more armour instead to make them even more durable. Especially in very large missiles.

A size 24 missile with two size 5 engines can have quite some armour and a huge warhead to boot. These launchers are usually miniaturized to 0.25 so they take up space as if they were a size 6 missile. The reload time is not that important on them since you usually have two maybe three salvoes in the magazines anyway.

Another important thing about the bigger armoured missiles that I argued before is that they are cheaper to build than as smaller faster missile. That is also an important fact in the equation.

This make bigger missiles more effective against well armoured ships and lethal to low armoured ships where they punch through the armour in the first hit.

[Charlie Beeler]

First a pet peeve that I haven't addressed in quite some time....MIRV (Multiple Independently guided Reentry Vehicle) is not part of Aurora.  For some reason misuse of this acronym really bugs me from time to time.  It probably has to do with growing up under threat of them and then a 23 years in the US Army Aviation where proper use of a whole host of acronym's is a way of life.  MWM (Multi-Warhead Missile) just fits better. 

There, that's been done again.  I really don't care if the term is misused or not by others.  Back to using whatever is your preference.



I still don't see small missiles as overpowered.  Yes, it is easier to design larger salvo spreads that swamp active defenses designed to handle salvos of larger missiles in lower quantity.  Here's the kicker, what is the return fire doing?  It's still back to which side is getting more damage through. 

What's even more important are the decisions that go into deciding missile speed, powered range, and the supporting active sensors/missile fire controls.  If you've designed your fleet for extreme range open space, is it flexible enough to prosecute a warp assault?  If the design is optimized for middle or short range and can it function in open space against an extreme range OPFOR?  If you've decided to rely on a single ship for your long range sensors can you successfully defend it? etc etc etc. 

In final analysis no two players are going to come to the same conclusions, the test is whether your's are superior to the ones you face.

[IanD]

My tuppence worth - Turn the problem on its head make larger missiles more difficult to intercept. Add penetration aids. For every 0.25 missile point (or whatever) a decoy is carried and released, so your salvo of seven size 5 missiles suddenly becomes twenty-eight, but only seven are real. The decoys can be launched when AMMs are launched, all it needs is an IR detector as part of the penetration aid package to detect the launch flare of AMMs. Thus the ability will not be revealed until you field AMMs. Might not be too difficult to code for?

This doesn't solve the Size 1 AMM conundrum but could be fun anyway  . I would also like Precursors etc to have their active sensors on, or they are just to easy to take down without firing a shot in their own defence, but I guess that's a whole different discussion.

[alex_brunius]

My tuppence worth - Turn the problem on its head make larger missiles more difficult to intercept.

I don't like solutions that are counter intuitive. If anything smaller missiles in their nature more difficult to intercept compared to large ones, although aurora ignores this and only checks speed of target missile.

Instead I prefer solutions that make sense, adding a bit off damage resistance to armor/shields that can make certain types or advanced armor/shields immune to low damage small missiles and gauss gun pea-shooters make more sense IMHO.

[Charlie Beeler]

My tuppence worth - Turn the problem on its head make larger missiles more difficult to intercept. Add penetration aids. For every 0.25 missile point (or whatever) a decoy is carried and released, so your salvo of seven size 5 missiles suddenly becomes twenty-eight, but only seven are real. The decoys can be launched when AMMs are launched, all it needs is an IR detector as part of the penetration aid package to detect the launch flare of AMMs. Thus the ability will not be revealed until you field AMMs. Might not be too difficult to code for?

This doesn't solve the Size 1 AMM conundrum but could be fun anyway  . I would also like Precursors etc to have their active sensors on, or they are just to easy to take down without firing a shot in their own defence, but I guess that's a whole different discussion.

I like the idea of reactive decoys, but without a complete change of the sensor rules I don't see it working as described.  I've played around with a different but related concept, Countermissile buoy.  The problem is that any missile/buoy mounted sensor (active or thermal) is just way to myopic without a exponential tech advantage. 

Example of the sensor problem:  Assuming Ion drives and related level tech a counter missile can be expected to travel 33k/kps or better and the game sequence requires detection at greater than 5seconds for an intercept chance, in this case well over 150k/km.  Said sz 1 missile also only has a thermal signature of less than 2.  Equal level thermal sensor sensitivity is 11 netting a strength of only .55 for 1 msp of missile/buoy mount.  That can only see a thermal signature of 5 at 2,750km.  An equal sized active sensor only has the ability to see size or smaller missiles at 12,578km. 

Deployment in response to a detected launch is problematic at best.  If Steve is willing to pursue, it might be reasoned that a last ditch effect along the same vein as the CIWS systems ability to ignore the detection sequence could be used. 

Instead of decoy deployment being reactive to missile launch, it would be simpler too preset deployment at x range from target. 

I don't like solutions that are counter intuitive. If anything smaller missiles in their nature more difficult to intercept compared to large ones, although aurora ignores this and only checks speed of target missile.

Instead I prefer solutions that make sense, adding a bit off damage resistance to armor/shields that can make certain types or advanced armor/shields immune to low damage small missiles and gauss gun pea-shooters make more sense IMHO.

Not counter-intuitive at all.  It actually shows imagination and insight into game mechanics.

Nor does  Aurora ignore target size in relation to intercept.  It is handled in a relatively simple manor though, TCS and sensor resolution, if you can't see it you can't shoot it.

At some point Steve may add differential damage profiles between weapons, armor, and/or shields.  But because of existing system performance issues with VB6 I don't see him making changes in that direction anytime soon.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

even if you improve larger missiles you're still going to have problems with uncounterable swarms of small missiles.

I still don't see small missiles as overpowered.  Yes, it is easier to design larger salvo spreads that swamp active defenses designed to handle salvos of larger missiles in lower quantity.  Here's the kicker, what is the return fire doing?  It's still back to which side is getting more damage through. 

What's even more important are the decisions that go into deciding missile speed, powered range, and the supporting active sensors/missile fire controls.  If you've designed your fleet for extreme range open space, is it flexible enough to prosecute a warp assault?  If the design is optimized for middle or short range and can it function in open space against an extreme range OPFOR?  If you've decided to rely on a single ship for your long range sensors can you successfully defend it? etc etc etc. 

In final analysis no two players are going to come to the same conclusions, the test is whether your's are superior to the ones you face.

Small missiles make most of your ship design decisions pointless.  Pretty much the only thing that matters is whether you outrange the enemy AMMs.  if you do you might win if you don't you lose.  the only exceptions are extreme defensive tanks and very rare cases where you have similar AMM range to the enemy. 

this is because AMM ships usually pack far more than enough missiles into their magazines to completely destroy an equivalently sized ship.

it's not hard to design 50mkm range AMMs

The worst part is that AMMs get better at higher techs.

[Jorgen_CAB]

If your task group is built with good enough beam PD then most AMM barrages should not be much of a problem. Most AMM ships do not have that many launchers and fire-controls, but rely mostly on deep magazines, thus beam PD can usually take care of most of the AMM directed at you.

The biggest problem with small missiles are when you design size 3 and below as ASM and design ships around these weapon systems. It will become problematic to devise a good enough AMM/PD defensive screen without having a larger fleet and a much more expensive fleet. The math sort of break down below size four missiles as real ASM for game balance. The only benefit larger missiles have in this regard is better fuel economy and thus better range.

You can get very good results with big missiles and armour versus AMM, down to equalling a barrage of size 3 missiles but with a stronger punch once they hit. The problem is that big armoured missiles is easier countered with also using lasers/meason PD or AMM with size 2 warheads (later tech). There are no real effective beam PD defence against huge swarms of very small ASM missiles.

[Conscript Gary]

Konisforce's talk of a granularity arms race got me thinking... What if, beyond the simple measure of warhead strength, we had a 'warhead spread/scatter/subsubmunitions/focus' factor as well? Basically some way to allow a missile to hit multiple targets in the same location at the cost of sheer power. For anti-missile work, it would be optimal to maximize your spread in order to better handle salvos of missiles. It would be useless against an armored warship because the penetration profile of a fractional strength hit is, well, nothing, but that's the price to pay for specialization. If you want flexible AMMs that can double as a last-ditch offense in a pinch then you can design those too, they'll just lose out on the increased salvo handling ability.
For larger missiles with room to play, this opens up some fun options. You can stick to standard and apply your full wallop to a single target, or you can divvy up your still-sizable punishment to try to force the enemy out of formation.
Not sure how said extra targets would be picked, though random seems as good as any. Maybe just have some set fraction increments, 1/1  to just the target, 1/2 to the target and somebody else in the same spot, and so on. If you've got crowd control missiles loaded against a single dreadnaught, well, sucks to be you.
Now adding in fractional damage that only effectively affects missiles might seem a bit sloppy in and of itself, the options such a change would open up seem interesting.
Hm, and if you continued the damage attenuation of beam weapons down between one and zero it would be a range buff to PD as well, though not sure the effect that would have.

[Josasa]

-Good Idea-

This is actually a pretty good idea and it does allow for some interesting game options. 

Now adding in fractional damage that only effectively affects missiles might seem a bit sloppy in and of itself, the options such a change would open up seem interesting.

I wonder if you could base damage on MSP rather than HS.  I'm not sure how difficult that would be, but I could see it working out that if the damage per MSP was less than the missile size, or something along those lines.  Or this might just be a horrible idea altogether. 

I was thinking about the idea of having armor penetrating missiles with a different damage pattern which would actually go along quite well with what Gary was saying.  Not sure how that would effect balance though. 

[Charlie Beeler]

even if you improve larger missiles you're still going to have problems with uncounterable swarms of small missiles.

In most cases an tech improvement helps larger missiles also helps smaller missiles.  Yes, small missiles can be a problem to defend against, but certainly not "uncounterable". 

Small missiles make most of your ship design decisions pointless.

 
This may be your experience, but it is not mine.  A lot has to do with how the ship firing the small missiles is designed.  Is it truly a missile defense platform or is it designed to swamp ship defenses?  Are the missile volleys in few high volume salvos or many low volume salvos?  Does the opposing ship use organic active sensors or is it dependent on a "scout" platform?  The decisions to address these questions are far from pointless.  whether you make to correct decision is always the question.

Pretty much the only thing that matters is whether you outrange the enemy AMMs.  if you do you might win if you don't you lose.  the only exceptions are extreme defensive tanks and very rare cases where you have similar AMM range to the enemy.

Couldn't be further from the truth.  As with all aspects of ship combat what matters most is who hits hardest and fastest while taking the least damage.  Whether you use small fast missiles with a high cyclic rate and small warheads, or large slower missiles with lower cyclic rate and large warheads is only a portion of the decisions. 

this is because AMM ships usually pack far more than enough missiles into their magazines to completely destroy an equivalently sized ship.

True.  So do dedicated ASM ships, it's back to who can put more metal on target faster.  That has a lot more to do with launcher/MFC ratios and total hullspace per ship allocation than just magazine depth.  This is balanced by how well the various ships/fleets can thin incoming missile volleys.

it's not hard to design 50mkm range AMMs

To a certain degree size 1 missiles can have the same range as any larger missile.  What's your point?  Even at Nuclear Pulse tech levels I commonly have much greater ASM ranges than that. 
 

The worst part is that AMMs get better at higher techs.

All missiles can get better as tech advances.  It's how you develop it that makes the difference.