v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

"The chance to hit for the missile is calculated normally and then applied to a separate attack from each warhead."

So is there a single roll to hit and if successful then all the fragmentation attacks automatically hit, or do the individual fragments still have to roll for their own hits?

There is a single chance to hit calculation, but a separate to-hit roll for each warhead. The idea is to maximise the chances of hitting the target at least once.

Does that mean if you have a missile with 1 warhead and Missile Retargeting Capability, then you're guaranteed to get a hit (eventually, ignoring PD), but if you're using a multi warhead missile with Retargeting Capability, then you're not actually guaranteed a hit, because the fragments have separate to-hit rolls?

A MW missile with retargeting will only be expended if it hits (a missile or a decoy) with at least one warhead. Otherwise, it doesn't detonate.

[Pedroig]

Because how the game functions, two separate classes cannot look the same. The moment you get active sensors on a target, you know what class it is. There is no "fuzzy identification" process in Aurora. Steve would have to add that as a feature and it would open a big can of worms and affect lot of other things too - like IFF for example.

Yes, correct. We used to have a lot more uncertainty. Thermal contacts for example were standalone and not related to a class, but it created a lot of micromanagement about identifying classes. You could figure it out with calculations of thermal vs speed, etc., plus in the real world you can identify individual ships from their engine noise, so in the end I removed the need for the micromanagement and just identified the target. The same would apply to missiles.

I understand what/where the limitation lies, and though I do not understand how much of a hassle it would be, Steve's word that it would be too much is good enough for me.

[Destragon]

On the PD rework post, the max for fire concentration on BFCs is 10 per target. Shouldn't there also be an option for "unlimited" for the probably rare situation where you don't care about your maintenance supplies and you have more than 10 shots worth of weapons assigned to 1 BFC and you want to overkill a very low amount of targets?
I guess it wouldn't be a good solution, because then you just fire every single shot on the first missile.

Edit:
Hm, the more I think about the fire concentration system, the more confused I get. Aren't you gonna have to min-max the setting for every BFC in your fleet whenever a new salvo of missiles is headed towards you?

[Marski]

Heya Steve,

Really enjoying v2. 1. 1 version of Aurora and v2. 2 looks great with all the changes you've been making.

I saw that Plasma Carronades are getting Spinal Mounts. 
Is there a reason why Railguns don't have them? I'm really craving my MACs, lol.

Many thanks

Mainly because I haven't found a way to implement them that I really like. I considered similar to lasers with spinal just allowing a larger mount, or maybe more shots, but I would prefer to have something with more variety, but that doesn't overpower railguns.

Perhaps allow railguns to be put on turrets? It would increase their service lifespan. Lasers are an upgrade in every way compared to them, exaggerated by the appearance of shielded hostile ships.

[GodEmperor]

I just really wish there was a way to rename minerals.. Just cosmetic thing but it would really help with the more hard SF playthroughs.

[Nori]

Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.

[Destragon]

Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.

What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.

[kilo]

Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.

What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.

It could act as a MIRV carrying multiple warheads, which have to be engaged by CIWS final fire individually.

[Iceranger]

Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.

What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.

It could act as a MIRV carrying multiple warheads, which have to be engaged by CIWS final fire individually.

But it is actually a single missile, so 1 hitting shot is all that needed for killing it, instead of having to kill all the 'real' MIRVs in the case of a 2-staged missile.

[lumporr]

Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.

What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.

It could act as a MIRV carrying multiple warheads, which have to be engaged by CIWS final fire individually.

But it is actually a single missile, so 1 hitting shot is all that needed for killing it, instead of having to kill all the 'real' MIRVs in the case of a 2-staged missile.

A souped-up laser-warhead-carrying MW missile with ECM designed to shorten PD range as to be ineffective against the four warheads, plus the extra chance to hit component, would be better than four laser-warhead missiles with each of those components individually, I would think.

Spitballing ideas for this is gonna be a lot of fun.

[Destragon]

A souped-up laser-warhead-carrying MW missile with ECM designed to shorten PD range as to be ineffective against the four warheads, plus the extra chance to hit component, would be better than four laser-warhead missiles with each of those components individually, I would think.

Spitballing ideas for this is gonna be a lot of fun.

Laser warheads missiles can't have multiple warheads.
Also, we weren't comparing a multi-warhead missile to multiple separate missiles, but a multi-warhead missile to one single warhead missile of the same size.

[lumporr]

A souped-up laser-warhead-carrying MW missile with ECM designed to shorten PD range as to be ineffective against the four warheads, plus the extra chance to hit component, would be better than four laser-warhead missiles with each of those components individually, I would think.

Spitballing ideas for this is gonna be a lot of fun.

Laser warheads missiles can't have multiple warheads.
Also, we weren't comparing a multi-warhead missile to multiple separate missiles, but a multi-warhead missile to one single warhead missile of the same size.

Ahh, gotcha. Trying to follow along on my phone, must not've been paying attention.

[Droll]

I think it would be cool if each individual warhead hit the same spot on the enemy ship, I think it would allow for more armor penetration per point of damage if you did that. Though I guess then you'd just have each missile have 1-strength warheads that basically converts it into a particle lance.

[Iceranger]

@Steve, regarding the new PD mechanics, I have a few questions below mainly regarding the fire concentration limit

Code: [Select]

3) Each Beam Fire Control is assigned a Fire Concentration from 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest and 3 the default. If this many shots are already allocated against a missile, this fire control will ignore that missile for targeting purposes.
...
c) For each salvo in the 'Potential Salvo Targets' list that is not ignored, the fire control creates a 'Missile List' of the missiles in that salvo in ascending order of the number of point defence weapons currently assigned to attack that missile. The fire control then cycles through that 'Missile List'.
i) If the missile has already been targeted by a number of point defence weapons equal to or greater than the 'Fire Concentration' value of the Fire Control (see point 3), the missile is ignored (as are all remaining missiles in the salvo).
Does this mean if the defender has more than 10x shots than the incoming missiles, only 10 shots will be fired at each missile regardless? Do you think adding higher limits, or an 'unlimited' option here could be useful? Higher limits may be useful for PD ships utilizing small-sized Gauss cannons as the shots are numerous but each shot has a low hit chance.

The second question is whether it makes sense to limit the 'number of expected/average hits against a missile' instead of the 'number of shots fired at a missile'. I think the former keeps the goal of making leakers and overkilling shots possible and makes better sense due to the following reasons:

• It provides a better idea of 'how many shots are wasted (overkilling shots)' for all beam PD types regardless of their base hit chance. 3 shots from a 66% Gauss turret have way more expected number of hits than 3 shots from a 16% Gauss turret. Whereas 3 expected hits from either weapon are expected to have 2 overkilling shots.
  
• Since it is limiting the expected hits, the list can be shorter and potentially makes the UI less cluttered.
• It works for all incoming missile types regardless of their speed and ECM capabilities. The players do not have to increase this number against better/faster missiles or lower this number against inferior missiles when their shots have a 100% hit chance.
• Players also do not have to reduce this number to 'save' unnecessary shots when their ships get better combat bonuses during the course of a game.

To achieve this, the coding isn't complicated. For each shot, the expected number of hits is its chance to hit, which will be calculated during the PD calculation anyway. Then, instead of recording the number of PD shots currently assigned to attack each missile, record the sum of the chance to hit from the weapons attacking that missile, and sort the missile list in ascending order of the number of expected hits.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Hm, the more I think about the fire concentration system, the more confused I get. Aren't you gonna have to min-max the setting for every BFC in your fleet whenever a new salvo of missiles is headed towards you?

Not really. For example, set your fast-firing, low cost point defence weapons to high concentration and high priority. Set your expensive weapons to low concentration and low priority. The expensive weapons will only fire if the cheap weapons are not sufficiently covering the inbounds. If you don't even want all the fast-firing ones to fire, then just stop some ships firing entirely.

Inbound waves tend to be similar sizes so you shouldn't need to do much micromanagement, but I will see how it goes in a campaign.