Missile Design -again!-

[jseah (OP)]

Actually, I'm sorry, the mirror fleet experiment was only conducted with the full size 4 missiles.  I never tried with two-stagers (which I expect to be not much better) and on paper at least, the MIRV will punch straight through it.  Like 20-30% leak rate.  (and when there are two to three thousand missiles, 30% leak rate is deadly)

[Jorgen_CAB]

The only reason you are vulnerable against MIRV is because you don't have any active defence against it.

In your case you need one or two small 6000 ton carriers with Gauss armed fighters and a 3000-3500 ton scout with as big a res 1 sensor is what you need to deal with MIRVs. Gauss fighters is also pretty decent at PD duty.

But against the AI I presume its a waste since it does not use MIRVs.

As I said before, you can easily afford two to three times the tonnage of beam PD ship versus missile ships.

It is a tradeoff in efficiency. With AMM launchers you can defend against larger salvos in total that is true. Despite this the balanced approach is effective in the long run.
Look at it like this. By saving resources you can have a larger fleet in total and even larger in the future than you otherwise would.

My human fleets tend to have 30% Gauss PD, 40% Laser PD and 30% AMM defences. No hard rules and different task-groups differs allot.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I might also add that I don't think that either tactic discussed here is unusable or directly bad. As long as they work and you are victorious over your enemy it does not matter. I also think that the issue between what someone think is more efficient depends more on practical experiences from the game and what enemies we face there. Some tactics are much more efficient against certain types of defences etc.

There is also a battlefield efficiency versus economic efficiency. Some strategies might have a good battlefield efficiency but dreadful industrial efficiency while some is mediocre in the field but have a rather good economic efficiency. I usually get the feeling that people like to talk about battlefield efficiency and not as much about the economical side where missiles in general can be very bad. After you fought a few wars using missiles only it will usually have costed you quite allot of wealth, workforce, resources etc.

As one example of something that is very resource efficient against the AI is to use small sensor scouts and thus save lots of research on sensors and even defensive measures on your ships. The AI can more or less not cope with it and as such you can build a very optimised and quite frank boring fleet. The scout usually carry a large sensor of appropriate resolution (80-120) or a smaller one (20-40). The scout is very fast and small, usually 500 tons. The enemy AI can never target it or catch it. Your missile fleet carry missiles with large enough range to avoid enemy active sensors, I have not yet met an AI that have extremely huge sensors (unless seriously out teched) and if they had I would have to switch to carriers and fighters instead. The main fleet will not even need any AMM or beam PD at all because they will never be detected (unless we talk about invading fortified worlds).
The only thing I have to worry about is to be caught by enemy listening stations...

Anyway... it is my opinion that missiles is very efficient on the battlefield if brought in enough volume. But rely on them exclusively is only a viable option if your industry and empire overall are much stronger than the enemy, unless they also rely exclusively on missiles as a weapon. I also find it very hard to create an efficient fleet that relies only on beam technology unless you have far superior technology than the opponent (about two levels ahead is enough I think).

Personally I look at my economy quite allot and try to use what is necessary to do the job. Missiles is a big part of it but in general I do not completely rely on them all the time.

I also hope I have (to some extent) proven that bigger missiles has their place in the game and actually can be effective. Both economically and on the battlefield, as long as you use some armour in them.

[Charlie Beeler]

I meant to have this reply done over the weekend.  Funny how RL gets in the way.

1. Smaller yield per missile means that I basically have to sandpaper away thick armour on large ships and it is a very inefficient use of resources.
2. Less fuel efficiency and thus general less range overall on missiles or more fuel needed per MSP in a missile.
3. None armoured missiles are weak (and expensive) against AMM but especially weak at beam PD.
4. Much worse industrial economic efficiency.

1)  6pt warheads are a long way from sandpapering.  Granted it will take a few more salvos to achieve the same penetration, but that is true no matter the armour levels faced.

2)  Considering the may limiter to missile engagement range is active sensor/missile fire control suite, missile fuel efficiency to range is a minor consideration.

3)  True to a point.  This has been covered and addressed.

4)  This is actually dependent on factors governed by missile platform design and tactical implementation.

If you use large missiles you either need insane amount of research into reload rate research or you go with miniaturization of the launches. Miniaturization is the more obvious and easy path. When you fire a volley of large missile you generally fire them in huge volleys to penetrate both AMM and beam PD of the enemy ships. Large volleys are the most cost efficient way to break both of these defenses the way I see it.

Actually the best way to overwhelm PD is with increased missile volume and increased salvo count.  This is less effective against AMM defenses designed to intercept at maximum AMM range.  It's a balancing act between total missile capacity (magazine space) and salvo density (launchers/MFC's) vs active defenses (AMM/Beam PD suites). 

The std sz4 vs .33 sz12 offensive missiles are actually at a hs usage break even point.  The std sz4 will have fired their magazines dry and headed for reload long before the .33 sz12 second salvo is even ready to launch.  Worse, all of those sz4's will have reached their targets (assuming no intercept) before the sz12's second salvo is launched. 

The above example sz4 vs sz12 missiles also favor the sz4 in speed.  Yes, the sz12 has slightly greater range.  Assuming both have sensor/MFC suites allowing maximum ranges the sz4's can reach their target over 5 minutes before the first sz12 reaches it's target (meeting engagement assumed). 

The main reason why I dropped the use of small high frequency volleys was the "small volume volley killer gauss cannon". Small missiles can't use armour to very good effect without compromising speed/range or yield to be effective and thus gauss canons will eat them for breakfast. On the other hand Gauss cannon struggle hard against armoured missiles, even modestly armoured size 6-8 missiles.

This is actually quite easy to counter as stated above, more salvos per volley than there are BFC's.  My smallest missile ships as a design standard have at least 2 MFC's for this very reason.  Your example Takao just needs to drop a single launcher and add an MFC.  All other things being equal in a 1v1 dual the Atago will die just before the Takao runs dry.  Even at a full load the missiles are economically/strategically/tactically much cheaper than the ship they kill.



I am curious, how are you getting 2 32.64hs turrets into a 65hs ship?  The Atago specs imply full size gauss cannon in 2 quad turrets with 1 sz BFC.  Even before the sz14 engine that is larger than the ship.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Obviously I'm going to disagree with a few of your points here...

One thing that I get the feeling that you do not address at all are the industrial cost of producing all these missiles and missile ships. And I certainly do NOT advocate the absence of AMM equipped ships . Based on my experiences and observations I can easily afford about ten beam PD ships and five AMM ships for every ten AMM ships. A missile ship is about 30-40% more expensive of the assembly line when fully loaded with missiles (not counting the logistical support needed as well).
I'm a profound advocate of the balanced fleet approach and it is also much more inexpensive for your industry in the long run. In essence, over a period of time one single missile ship has the cost of approximately three beam ships. This obviously depends on how many wars you fight as well.
It should be pretty easy to ruin an enemies economy if they rely exclusively on missiles given that both empires have similar industrial capacity. It is generally also strategically more sound to spread you risks and use as many different resources as possible to build ships with, that will make each mine more efficient in the long run.

It is also flat out wrong to say that you can out perform a beam fleet with fire controls. Because beam fire controls are about 70% cheaper to build given the same tech levels and size and you generally have bigger missile FC (in my experience) unless they are mounted on fighters, but fighters can be dealt with in other ways.

I also don't find it hard to match my long range missiles with fire controls, but I probably use less FC per launcher than you do and overall bigger ship of the line. And I must also say that at a tech level of 6 per MSP I usually consider a yield of 6 to be sandpapering armour, especially against ships in 30k ton plus.

In my opinion it is very efficient (resource wise) to use large heavily armoured missiles to test the defences of the opponent. How many get through and how many don't get through, further engagements is calculated from that point on. They are cheap and do the job well and they have decent yield as well. It does not matter much how many missiles that is fired. If it does not get through it just mean the next volley must be bigger. As long as you manage to get over that break point its all over and the big armoured missile will be more economical even if they are slower. The industrial economy in a big armoured missile can be a huge as 3 to 1 against a faster size four missiles. I usually field them with an economy span of 2 to 3.
I also find that it is pretty easy to approximate the number of missiles I need if I fight against a know enemy. So once the enemy is found I can make a rather educated guess if the strength of my ASM ships is enough to bring down the enemy or not. If not I will have to either disengage or engage anyway and simply attrition their defences (unless their beam PD is too strong, then it's pointless)

I also try to keep my missiles ships (cruisers, fighters or what have you) away from enemy scanners and at least out range their missiles by a great deal with my missiles. That is why I separate the active scanner part from the main combat group. It is generally very easy to slip a small ship with a high resolution scanner under the enemies noses.

In general I think that my fleets are somewhere about 10-15% anti ship beam, 30-40% ASM, 15-25% AMM and 10-15 gauss PD, 10-15% laser beam PD, and 5-10% dual role anti-ship/PD. But this would only be when a real empire is established and I have the economy to diversify my efforts. We are now talking about production/maintenance cost of my industry and not the percentage of my actual ships.

In the early game I usually go for the overwhelming in force strategy (using missiles) that has very little defences at all, mainly to save military research for later. So this mean faster and smaller ships with long range missiles. My main research concern early on is offensive missile tech, some basic sensor tech and fuel efficiency. Decent engine tech is of course important. This is more of an offensive defensive strategy and by no means useful to invade anyone.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I forgot to say that the ship in the example were using half sized Gauss cannons.

[Nathan_]

On the subject of mirvs I've noticed that enemy ships with CIWS will engage the mirv released warheads before any others if they arrive at the same time, so if I put a few missile busses in with my asms that basically removes close in point defense as a viable measure. is there any way to get them to prefer bigger missiles? or should CIWS choose its targets randomly out of all the missiles arrayed against it?

[Jorgen_CAB]

On the subject of mirvs I've noticed that enemy ships with CIWS will engage the mirv released warheads before any others if they arrive at the same time, so if I put a few missile busses in with my asms that basically removes close in point defense as a viable measure. is there any way to get them to prefer bigger missiles? or should CIWS choose its targets randomly out of all the missiles arrayed against it?

I think this can be a problem otherwise as well and not just with MIRVs. You could have different sized launches and stuff the smaller missiles with armour as one example. I just think one should avoid doing it and perhaps submit this as a bug or feature change or something.

Using MIRV against the AI are probably not really fair since the AI can never deal with them properly so should be avoided, at least I do. MIRV in general should not be abused to much at all, they are problematic to deal with. The biggest problem lies with how the armor model in the game functions where small damage cant be deflected by armour completely without damaging it. I think that the model Steve has though out for Newtonian Aurora will fix allot of these problems, if we could have that system now would be great. 

[Nathan_]

I think this can be a problem otherwise as well and not just with MIRVs. You could have different sized launches and stuff the smaller missiles with armour as one example. I just think one should avoid doing it and perhaps submit this as a bug or feature change or something.

Using MIRV against the AI are probably not really fair since the AI can never deal with them properly so should be avoided, at least I do. MIRV in general should not be abused to much at all, they are problematic to deal with. The biggest problem lies with how the armor model in the game functions where small damage cant be deflected by armour completely without damaging it. I think that the model Steve has though out for Newtonian Aurora will fix allot of these problems, if we could have that system now would be great. 

The problem with the different sized launchers is that I don't think I could make a size 1 missile with the range of my bigger missiles, so that one wouldn't be as much of an issue. I'll make that suggestion though.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Just for fun I drafted up a test environment where I began testing some different tactical maneuvers and ship configurations fighting amongst themselves.

In one instance I did some testing with regard to the above discussion about smaller missiles in high frequency and larger missiles in larger salvos.

Down below are two fleets with more or less equal tech levels, they differ slightly but both sides have invested more or less the same number if research point into building their respective fleets.

Build point numbers for the fleet are calculated with respect of what the ships cost to build including two full loads of missiles. The second load will represent the increased cost for missile ships on the industry due to logistics costs and the need for having reserves. Two loads might be optimistic, but I felt I needed some down to earth numbers to reflect each fleets fighting capacity in terms of industrial might.

There are two forces, the Terran Federation (Evil Empire!!) and the United Star Alliance (The Rebels!!).  

The Terran Federation will use the more traditional missile oriented fleet while the United Star Alliance will use a slight variation of it, but still focused allot on missiles as well.

Terran Federation Task-group "Iron Fist"

Code: [Select]

Annihilator class Battlecruiser    25,600 tons     696 Crew     4843.8 BP      TCS 512  TH 1920  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 12-77     Shields 0-0     Sensors 11/11/0/0     Damage Control Rating 29     PPV 104.64
Maint Life 2.56 Years     MSP 2247    AFR 275%    IFR 3.8%    1YR 480    5YR 7197    Max Repair 400 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 2    
Magazine 806    

NPE-2000-640-036  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (4)    Power 640    Fuel Use 36%    Signature 480    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 19.5 billion km   (45 days at full power)

LS-400-10-10  20cm Ultraviolet Laser Array (3)    Range 256,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 4    ROF 10        10 10 10 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
LSPD-20000-120-12  Ultraviolet Laser PD Battery (2x4)    Range 120,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 4    ROF 5        3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
CIWS-16000-32-06  Guardian PD System (1x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
CBFC-4000-128  Combat Beam Fire-control (1)    Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
PDFC-16000-32  Point-defence Fire-control (1)    Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0
PP-03-00-05  Stellarator Fusion Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%
PP-06-01-05  Stellarator Fusion Reactor (2)     Total Power Output 12    Armour 0    Exp 5%
PP-24-02-05  Stellarator Fusion Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 24    Armour 0    Exp 5%

ILS-01-10  Interceptor Launch System (6)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
TLS-04-30  Torpedo Launch System (12)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 30
TLCS-151-120-11  Torpedo Launch Control System (2)     Range 151.8m km    Resolution 120
ILCS-027-030-11  Interceptor Launch Control System (1)     Range 27.7m km    Resolution 1
AST-146-40-06  Harpoon class Anti-Ship Torpedo (156)  Speed: 40,000 km/s   End: 60.8m    Range: 146m km   WH: 6    Size: 4    TH: 133/80/40
AMM-066-38-092  Viper class Interceptor Missile (180)  Speed: 38,400 km/s   End: 2.9m    Range: 6.6m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 307/184/92

NSS-151-120-11  Naval Search Sensor (1)     GPS 15120     Range 151.8m km    Resolution 120
TH-011-11  Naval IR Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km
EM-011-11  Naval EM Detection System (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

Code: [Select]

Spear class Missile Cruiser    12,800 tons     355 Crew     2369 BP      TCS 256  TH 960  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 8-48     Shields 0-0     Sensors 11/11/0/0     Damage Control Rating 9     PPV 45
Maint Life 2.51 Years     MSP 1041    AFR 145%    IFR 2%    1YR 229    5YR 3436    Max Repair 400 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Magazine 717    

NPE-2000-640-036  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (2)    Power 640    Fuel Use 36%    Signature 480    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres    Range 19.5 billion km   (45 days at full power)

TLS-04-30  Torpedo Launch System (10)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 30
ILS-01-10  Interceptor Launch System (5)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
ILCS-027-030-11  Interceptor Launch Control System (1)     Range 27.7m km    Resolution 1
TLCS-151-120-11  Torpedo Launch Control System (1)     Range 151.8m km    Resolution 120
AST-146-40-06  Harpoon class Anti-Ship Torpedo (142)  Speed: 40,000 km/s   End: 60.8m    Range: 146m km   WH: 6    Size: 4    TH: 133/80/40
AMM-066-38-092  Viper class Interceptor Missile (150)  Speed: 38,400 km/s   End: 2.9m    Range: 6.6m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 307/184/92

NSS-151-120-11  Naval Search Sensor (1)     GPS 15120     Range 151.8m km    Resolution 120
TH-011-11  Naval IR Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km
EM-011-11  Naval EM Detection System (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10

Code: [Select]

Vindicator class Destroyer Escort    6,400 tons     177 Crew     1294.6 BP      TCS 128  TH 480  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 5-30     Shields 0-0     Sensors 11/11/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 14
Maint Life 2.29 Years     MSP 506    AFR 81%    IFR 1.1%    1YR 131    5YR 1958    Max Repair 400 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 2    
Magazine 328    

NPE-2000-640-036  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (1)    Power 640    Fuel Use 36%    Signature 480    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 19.5 billion km   (45 days at full power)

LS-060-03-05  10cm Visible Laser Array (2)    Range 60,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 2    ROF 5        3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
PDFC-16000-32  Point-defence Fire-control (1)    Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0
PP-24-02-05  Stellarator Fusion Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 24    Armour 0    Exp 5%

ILS-01-10  Interceptor Launch System (8)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
ILCS-027-030-11  Interceptor Launch Control System (1)     Range 27.7m km    Resolution 1
AMM-066-38-092  Viper class Interceptor Missile (328)  Speed: 38,400 km/s   End: 2.9m    Range: 6.6m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 307/184/92

TDS-013-015-11  Torpedo Detection System (1)     GPS 126     Range 13.9m km    Resolution 1
TH-011-11  Naval IR Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km
EM-011-11  Naval EM Detection System (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

ECM 10

Code: [Select]

Battle Claw class Command Ship    6,400 tons     170 Crew     1559.8 BP      TCS 128  TH 480  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 6-30     Shields 0-0     Sensors 11/110/0/0     Damage Control Rating 5     PPV 0
Maint Life 2.24 Years     MSP 762    AFR 65%    IFR 0.9%    1YR 206    5YR 3085    Max Repair 630 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Cryogenic Berths 400    

NPE-2000-640-036  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (1)    Power 640    Fuel Use 36%    Signature 480    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 19.5 billion km   (45 days at full power)

CIWS-16000-32-06  Guardian PD System (1x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
TDS-069-075-11  Torpedo Detection System (1)     GPS 630     Range 69.3m km    Resolution 1
TH-011-11  Naval IR Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km
EM-110-11  Naval EM Detection System (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  110m km

ECM 10

United Star Alliance Task-group "Freedom"

Code: [Select]

Liberty class Battlecruiser    50,000 tons     1216 Crew     8844 BP      TCS 1000  TH 5200  EM 6000
5200 km/s     Armour 10-120     Shields 200-300     Sensors 11/33/0/0     Damage Control Rating 51     PPV 220.8
Maint Life 2.65 Years     MSP 4533    AFR 487%    IFR 6.8%    1YR 917    5YR 13757    Max Repair 520 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 0    
Hangar Deck Capacity 3000 tons     Magazine 640    

NPE-2500-1040-048  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (5)    Power 1040    Fuel Use 48.17%    Signature 1040    Exp 13%
Fuel Capacity 3,000,000 Litres    Range 22.4 billion km   (49 days at full power)
SH-025-300  Delta class Shield Generator (80)   Total Fuel Cost  1,000 Litres per hour  (24,000 per day)

LS-240-06-10  15cm Ultraviolet Laser Array (8)    Range 240,000km     TS: 5200 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 4    ROF 10        6 6 6 6 4 4 3 3 2 2
LSPD-20000-120-12  Ultraviolet Laser PD Battery (4x4)    Range 120,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 4    ROF 5        3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
GCPD-20000-070-12  70mm Phalanx PD Turret (2x12)    Range 20,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 2    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CIWS-16000-32-06  Guardian PD System (2x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
CBFC-4000-128  Combat Beam Fire-control (2)    Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
PDFC-16000-32  Point-defence Fire-control (4)    Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0
PP-24-02-05  Stellarator Fusion Reactor (3)     Total Power Output 72    Armour 0    Exp 5%

TLS-08-8000  Torpedo Launch System (40)    Missile Size 8    Rate of Fire 8000
TLCS-209-180-11  Torpedo Launch Control System (2)     Range 209.2m km    Resolution 180
AST-195-32-06  Vindicator class Capitol Torpedo (40)  Speed: 32,000 km/s   End: 101.9m    Range: 195.6m km   WH: 6    Size: 8    TH: 128/76/38
AST-195-32-12  Tornado class Capitol Torpedo (40)  Speed: 32,000 km/s   End: 101.9m    Range: 195.6m km   WH: 12    Size: 8    TH: 128/76/38

TDS-034-037-11  Torpedo Detection System (1)     GPS 315     Range 34.7m km    Resolution 1
TH-011-11  Naval IR Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km
EM-033-11  Naval EM Detection System (1)     Sensitivity 33     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33m km

ECCM-1 (2)         ECM 10

Code: [Select]

Victory class Escort Frigate    4,400 tons     128 Crew     702.5 BP      TCS 88  TH 460  EM 0
5227 km/s     Armour 3-23     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 32.64
Maint Life 2.53 Years     MSP 274    AFR 56%    IFR 0.8%    1YR 60    5YR 897    Max Repair 230 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 3    

NPE-1250-460-053  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (1)    Power 460    Fuel Use 53.18%    Signature 460    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 19.2 billion km   (42 days at full power)

LSPD-20000-060-12  Visible Laser PD Battery (2x4)    Range 60,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 2    ROF 5        3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
PDFC-16000-32  Point-defence Fire-control (1)    Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0
PP-24-02-05  Stellarator Fusion Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 24    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Code: [Select]

Resolution class Escort Frigate    4,400 tons     114 Crew     762 BP      TCS 88  TH 460  EM 0
5227 km/s     Armour 3-23     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 10
Maint Life 2.82 Years     MSP 271    AFR 61%    IFR 0.9%    1YR 50    5YR 746    Max Repair 230 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1    
Magazine 426    

NPE-1250-460-053  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (1)    Power 460    Fuel Use 53.18%    Signature 460    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 19.2 billion km   (42 days at full power)

ILS-01-10  Interceptor Launch System (10)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
ILCS-020-022-11  Interceptor Launch Control System (2)     Range 20.8m km    Resolution 1
AMM-066-38-092  Viper class Interceptor Missile (426)  Speed: 38,400 km/s   End: 2.9m    Range: 6.6m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 307/184/92

Code: [Select]

Fireblade class Gunboat    2,500 tons     48 Crew     604 BP      TCS 50  TH 416  EM 600
8320 km/s     Armour 3-16     Shields 20-300     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 12
Maint Life 2.24 Years     MSP 151    AFR 50%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 41    5YR 610    Max Repair 208 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months    Spare Berths 2    

NPE-0650-416-246 Magneto-plasma Stardrive (1)    Power 416    Fuel Use 246.08%    Signature 416    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 1.5 billion km   (48 hours at full power)
SH-025-300  Delta class Shield Generator (8)   Total Fuel Cost  100 Litres per hour  (2,400 per day)

LS-240-06-10  15cm Ultraviolet Laser Array (3)    Range 192,000km     TS: 8320 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 4    ROF 10        6 6 6 6 4 4 3 3 2 2
CBFC-8000-96  Combat Beam Fire-control (1)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 8000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
PP-03-00-05  Stellarator Fusion Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%
PP-06-01-05  Stellarator Fusion Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Code: [Select]

Tribal T180 class Recon Craft    500 tons     4 Crew     185 BP      TCS 10  TH 96  EM 0
9600 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 1.36 Years     MSP 23    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 13    5YR 201    Max Repair 126 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 6    

NPE-0050-0032-280  Magneto-plasma Stardrive (3)    Power 32    Fuel Use 280.02%    Signature 32    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km   (37 hours at full power)

NSS-186-180-11  Naval Search Sensor (1)     GPS 22680     Range 186.0m km    Resolution 180
The tribal class recon craft comes in three variation Type-60 and Type-1, the difference is only in the resolution of their scanners.

Each Liberty cruiser will carry one Fireblade gunboat and one Tribal recon craft.


The setup was simple. I would take both these Task-groups against each other but also the same Task-group against each other and see the different results.

The above ships are not constructed with direct efficiency in mind, but should properly be a relatively fair representation of a real game with some role-playing thrown in. I just created both with what I thought could be a viable type of fleet anyone would build in the game.

So... the fleets are...

The Iron Fist TF

2xBC (Annihilator)  
4xCG (Spear)
5xDE (Vindicator)
1xCO (Battle Claw)

Total tonnage: 140800
Total build points: 38591


The Freedom TF

3xBC (Liberty)
 - 3xGS (Fireblade)
 - 3xSC (Tribal)
5xFE (Victory)
2xFE (Resolution)

Total tonnage: 180800
Total build points: 38561


All tests were done three times and they all behaved more or less the same.


Test 1: Iron Fist vs. Freedom

In this test the Freedom would start the engagement by releasing their salvo or 120 size 8 missiles. It usually took about 55-60% of the AMM stock of the Iron Fist to deal with it but did manage t shoot them all down well before it reached the task-force. The second volley are fired before the Iron Fist is within range and most of it is stopped and some is stopped by PD but part of the salvo will be able to slam into one of the battle cruisers but don't do much serious damage. A few gaping holes in the armour though.
Once the Iron Fist is in range they fire all their missiles. Since they have intel of the shields (through spies) they concentrate all their effort on one Freedom battle cruiser. Each salvo is a total of 64 missiles and there are about twelve to fifteen salvos coming in. The Resolution frigates start thinning out the salvos by firing one missile on each ASM in each salvo as best they can, there are only two of them. Point defenses start to fire at the salvoes and about four to eight missiles will get through and start damaging the shields on one of the cruisers. This goes on until all salvos are gone. The shields hold and no damage is done to the cruiser. The leak without using any AMM at all would increase slightly to six to ten missiles.

Note: I have noticed that the "Missile Tracking Bonus" technology does not seem to work. The 20% you should get for tracking the missile does not seem to be added. The logs show the same numbers with or without this tech and the results are the same. So, if this is true the leaking of missiles would be brought down to near zero without the use of any missiles.

Now it was time for the gunboats. They were launched and started to nib away at the Iron Fist task-group. A few times they actually did manage to kill them all... but it is tricky. You need to go in... shoot and retreat as soon as the shields are down (individually per ship not as a group), regenerate and then attack again. This works as long as the enemy does not have any missiles left...
But a few hits from those 20cm lasers is tough...


Test 2: Iron Fist vs. Iron Fist
The most boring test. Both fire all their missiles and shoot each others missiles down. They both head back home, neither have the nerve to engage in close combat being so reliant on their missiles, this has made them soft...
Some missiles actually managed to get through at some tests, they were at their limit of their AMM stocks.

Test 3: Freedom vs. Freedom
Some slightly more interesting results. The large volume of missiles are much harder to deal with with only two AMM frigates. In most cases they manage to shoot down about 30-35 missiles with PD and another 40-50 with AMM. The rest will hit and devastate the shields and inflict minor damage to the armour. Sometimes they fared better and did no damage. But all in all at least some damage.

Being more courageous than the Iron Fists they close the distance and duke it out in close combat, obviously with heavy casualties... no... did not do that, felt a bit pointless really!!  


All in all I feel that either fleet is rather solid in its design, they all have good defences and reasonable offensive force. But they really need a weaker opponent to succeed and could face a more powerful opponent and survive most of the time. These a probably typical of my play style. The one with longer range could of course have more offensive power and destroy the opponent before they can engage, but who know if that is always the case?!?

The Iron Fist should bring more AMM missiles in its magazines and perhaps less launchers, don't know... just felt that their AMM storage was a bit shallow. Though, AMM is expensive. On afterthought I should have let some of the first salvo hit their targets, which would let the PD take care of them and risk a few leaks. This would save enough AMM to combat the second salvo just fine. One never cease to learn, that's good...

The Freedom look quite similar to what I usually run with. A few central large cruisers with strong shields, good PD and backed up by AMM. Although I would take a minimum of one AMM and two PD frigates per cruiser as a minimum in any game on any standard mission. The Fireblade was just fun, perhaps not very efficient in this context but fun to use.


I was only trying to prove that the game actually allow large missiles to have its niche in the game without being inefficient and that high frequency waves of missiles not always is better just because they are better at saturate AMM centric fleets. I also avoided Gauss gun spams in the Freedom fleet because the Alliance are equally worried about large armoured missiles as small ones.

Comments and discussion are welcomed... was it a fair comparison?!?

[jseah (OP)]

Looks pretty fair to me.  Maybe I'll do my own test, then we'll see the differences in our playstyles.  =D


Also, I just thought of a tactic I could use against a mirror fleet of my own.  Since I build swarms of glass cannon ships, and that AMM pd is pretty effective (even in your test), a launch against a mirror fleet will be directed at one or two ships, aiming to kill them. 

So, if you spread out your fleet a little, you can tell whether the salvoes are dividing up or not.  If you have a 400 missile salvo coming in and it's not dividing, then its targeting a single ship and you might be able to let it hit for massive overkill and save your AMMs.  Might even cost you less.  >.>

[Jorgen_CAB]

That's a good tactic as long as you don't face the risk of mutiny as soon as you face some stiff opposition...

If you role-play while you play it might be used when cornered and are faced with total destruction. Sacrificing a single ship is a cheap price to pay.

But otherwise it should work.

[jseah (OP)]

Once you work out which ship it is, you hit the abandon ship button.  >.>

[Jorgen_CAB]

Once you work out which ship it is, you hit the abandon ship button.  >.>

Figured that, but that usually still leave people trapped in the ship for some reason.

Annyhow...

I thought some on the dynamics of your fleet and since you use glass ships you are more or less forced to provide your fleet with a total coverage of AMM. The thing about beam PD is that you must accept some leaking to get through. Either through very thick armour or a combination of armour and shields.

The best tactic against your fleet would probably (without any gamey tactics) be to deplete your AMM capability with armoured missiles and then attack into beam combat or use missiles if speed is not enough, but gunboats with high speed is easy to come by.

A missile like this fitted to a missile boat or some fighters based on a carrier or planetary hangars would seriously deplete any AMM stock very fast.

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 4 MSP  (0.2 HS)     Warhead: 4    Armour: 1     Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 33600 km/s    Engine Endurance: 24 minutes   Range: 49.3m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.9812
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 369.6%   3k km/s 121%   5k km/s 73.9%   10k km/s 37%
Materials Required:    1.25x Tritanium   1.7312x Gallicite   Fuel x475Magneto Plasma tech, 6 yield per MSP, 0.6 fuel consumtion, x4 power modifier

Granted that any fleet with decent amount of armour/shields would just allow large portions of such ordnance to strike home, you don't have that luxury.  


The point is... if you have a slightly more balanced approach you might (in most situations) be able to escape with most of your ships intact even if you run dry of AMM or is overwhelmed since your ships can still fight with their beam weapons and have good armour/shields.
For me this is just a way to conserve what resources I put in to creating a fleet.

[jseah (OP)]

All numbers are 3 s.f.  Missile was designed to 4s.f. accuracy. 

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 24
Speed: 38400 km/s    Engine Endurance: 4 minutes   Range: 9.8m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.0001
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 921.6%   3k km/s 288%   5k km/s 184.3%   10k km/s 92.2%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.7501x Gallicite   Fuel x55.75

Development Cost for Project: 100RPThis AM missile is one I conjured up with the same tech (64 agility per MSP, which is one level lower than your warhead tech).  It intercepts yours with a 27.4% chance (cost ratio of 2.44).  It takes 3.65 AMMs to achieve one hit, so 7.29 AMMs to down 1 missile. 

Against your missile, engagements start at 5.22 mkm, 2nd wave at 2.79 mkm, 3rd at 1.49 mkm, 4th at 793 kkm, 5th at 289 kkm and then a 6th at pointblank. 
Assuming 3v1 and unsaturated AMM launchers, this is a leak rate of 7.03%. 

With an equal tech level of 80 agility per MSP:

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 28
Speed: 38400 km/s    Engine Endurance: 3 minutes   Range: 6.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.0801
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1075.2%   3k km/s 336%   5k km/s 215%   10k km/s 107.5%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.8301x Gallicite   Fuel x36.25

Development Cost for Project: 108RPThis has a 32% interception chance (exactly!) for a cost ratio of 2.26.  It takes 3.125 AMMs to achieve one hit, so 6.25 AMMs to down 1 missile. 

Against your missile, engagements start at 3.41 mkm, 2nd wave at 1.82 mkm, 3rd at 971 kkm, 4th at 518 kkm, 5th at 182 kkm and then a 6th at pointblank. 
Assuming 3v1 and unsaturated AMM launchers, this is a leak rate of 4.34%. 

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 3 MSP  (0.15 HS)     Warhead: 4    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 49100 km/s    Engine Endurance: 4 minutes   Range: 12.2m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.84
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 491%   3k km/s 160%   5k km/s 98.2%   10k km/s 49.1%
Materials Required:    1x Tritanium   1.84x Gallicite   Fuel x83.25

Development Cost for Project: 284RPI am kind of sad now that engine increments are in 0.1 MSP chunks.  I can't actually drop the warhead to 3 since that results in a stupidly long ranged 2nd stage.  (37.8mkm range and only 51200 km/s speed)
The full size 4 missile costs about 3.4 and travels at only 1/3 the speed of your missile. 

The first AMM has a 18.8% hit rate (1.57 cost ratio), the 2nd has 21.9% (1.34 cost ratio). 
1st AMM: Engagements start at 4.30 mkm, 2nd wave at 1.89 mkm, 3rd at 660 kkm, 4th at 324 kkm, then it's pointblank. 
Assuming 3v1 and unsaturated AMM launchers, this is a leak rate of 4.42%. 
2nd AMM: Engagements start at 2.81 mkm, 2nd wave at 1.23 mkm, 3rd at 561 kkm, 4th at 225 kkm, then it's pointblank. 
Assuming 3v1 and unsaturated AMM launchers, this is a leak rate of 2.45%. 


Congratulations, you've made an armoured missile that is strictly better than my standard 2-stage design by every measure.  I guess the gracious thing to do is to concede now.  =D
Heh, I swear my 2 stagers performed better, but it could be the engine changes.  I used to make two-stagers that went twice as fast as my AMMs. 

Time to look at AMMs, maybe there's a better way to do this.