Author Topic: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 66735 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Salsabrains

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • S
  • Posts: 2
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #360 on: March 24, 2023, 07:48:56 AM »
Will it be possible to have retargeting and multiple warheads on the same missile? If so, would the missile be removed, and retargeting cease,  if at least one of the "fragments" hit a target?
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3058
  • Thanked: 2355 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #361 on: March 24, 2023, 09:17:39 AM »
Will it be possible to have retargeting and multiple warheads on the same missile? If so, would the missile be removed, and retargeting cease,  if at least one of the "fragments" hit a target?

It doesn't work that way. Multi-warhead missiles release their submunitions at a specified distance from the target. There is no targeting in the sense of %chance-to-hit involved in that process. After they are released, each submnition would retarget independently if it has that capability.
 
The following users thanked this post: Salsabrains

Offline JacenHan

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 459
  • Thanked: 117 times
  • Discord Username: Jacenhan
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #362 on: March 24, 2023, 11:03:18 AM »
Sounds like they are talking about the new Multiple Warhead Missiles feature, which is different from the existing sub-munitions which release away from the target. In that case, on detonation the warhead is split into X attacks with separate to-hit chances. My guess would be that you are correct, one hit will probably delete the missile and stop retargeting.
 
The following users thanked this post: Salsabrains

Offline Destragon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 151
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #363 on: March 24, 2023, 11:05:58 AM »
Will it be possible to have retargeting and multiple warheads on the same missile? If so, would the missile be removed, and retargeting cease,  if at least one of the "fragments" hit a target?
As far as I understood it, yes, that's how it works. The retargeting basically just guarantees that 1 of the fragments will hit the target and the other fragments have a chance to miss.
From Steve:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13098.msg164446#msg164446

It doesn't work that way. Multi-warhead missiles release their submunitions at a specified distance from the target. There is no targeting in the sense of %chance-to-hit involved in that process. After they are released, each submnition would retarget independently if it has that capability.
Are you thinking about missiles that carry other missiles? I think he was asking about the new fragmentation missiles specifically.
 
The following users thanked this post: Salsabrains

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #364 on: March 27, 2023, 09:06:00 PM »
I really like the new decoy missile mechanics. Well, pending balance testing, because I have no immediate idea how it compares balance wise. But the mechanics seem like a great idea as a counter tactic to mass box launchers, if nothing else.

That said, I do have one thing I suggest Steve might want to consider changing, and that's the name. "Decoy Missile" sounds a bit confusing, like it should be a missile you launch to distract fire from other missiles. Obviously anyone following the change log post by post is going to know better, but I expect a lot of questions and confusion from those that don't when the new version launches.

Even just switching it around, ie "Missile Decoy" might make its purpose more clear. Or maybe just "Decoy", "ECM Pod", "Flare Launcher", or something like that. I feel like there might be an even better term but I'm drawing a blank.

I also think it might do well with an associated tech line, just to encourage you to specialize in a few defense options like you currently specialize in only a few weapon types, but I can't think of what. Having a tech line to increase decoy signature seems like it would get unbalanced as decoys would become proportionately stronger even between equal tech opponents as tech increased, so that probably isn't a good way to handle it. Max simultaneous decoys maybe?
 
The following users thanked this post: Salsabrains

Offline Snoman314

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 127
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #365 on: March 27, 2023, 10:36:22 PM »
I like the sound of the new 'Decoy Missile' mechanics, mostly.

I agree with @Bremen, that the name needs work. Missile Decoy would work for me if not for the fact that it's already taken by missile launched decoy penaids. Maybe 'Defensive Decoy', or something similar?

Really, the only issue I have with it, is the prohibitive mass cost. 2.5% of the ships mass for a single decoy that gives 50% reduction in hits? That's a _lot_, for a decoy that only lasts for a single attack. If not for the cost, I could envisage missile combat where multiple waves are survived, by using multiple decoys per wave, or one huge wave is survived by using several decoys, but not at this cost in terms of ship mass. 10 decoys with equal signature (50% hit reduction), would be a quarter of the entire ship's mass!
 Perhaps a tech line that starts at 200t/MSP, and increases sharply from there? I disagree with Bremen's take on a signature/MSP tech line, as effectively greater signature just means you can carry more decoys, as there's diminishing returns on decoys with greater signatures.
Obviously playtesting will inform this, but on the face of it, the mass cost seems really high to me.

Is there any reason for the 5 MSP minimum size? What if I want my fighters to have decoys to defend against AMM size missiles?

Finally, a request for clarification - how would these interact with laser heads? I've gotten a little fuzzy on how they're going to work, but they don't go through the CIWS phase right? Will these decoys affect laser warheads? It sounds like they won't but I feel like they should.

I don't mean to sound so critical. Overall I really like the core mechanic here.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2023, 01:25:22 AM by Snoman314 »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11729
  • Thanked: 20682 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #366 on: March 28, 2023, 03:23:38 AM »
Yes, agree the name needs work. We already have 'missile decoys' - as they are the decoys on offensive missiles.

In real life we have Active Missile Decoys, like the Nulka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulka, but the Aurora decoy affects all missiles regardless of guidance type, so I thought active would be confusing. Chaff was another option, although its a large system so chaff didn't seem to be appropriate. Anyway - open to naming ideas.

Size and Cost has to be high in order to avoid making ASMs economically non-viable. The decoy will significantly reduce the effectiveness of mass missile strikes, but I didn't want it to be a general tactic that made missile warfare much less effective overall, especially given one of the objectives of the current update is to improve missile warfare. That said, I might reduce it a little depending on playtest and there is scope to reduce launcher size without changing decoy missile size.

Yes, it does affect laser warheads.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11729
  • Thanked: 20682 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #367 on: March 28, 2023, 03:24:47 AM »
I also think it might do well with an associated tech line, just to encourage you to specialize in a few defense options like you currently specialize in only a few weapon types, but I can't think of what. Having a tech line to increase decoy signature seems like it would get unbalanced as decoys would become proportionately stronger even between equal tech opponents as tech increased, so that probably isn't a good way to handle it. Max simultaneous decoys maybe?

The tech line is Missile ECM, which is used for this and missile decoys.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #368 on: March 28, 2023, 04:38:56 AM »
I am somewhat worried. Other changes to missiles were made to make larger missiles viable, now these decoys makes them less viable.
I hope hope that all the changes together will lead to more balanced decision making on missile usage and will not just make them obsolete again.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11729
  • Thanked: 20682 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #369 on: March 28, 2023, 04:52:51 AM »
I am somewhat worried. Other changes to missiles were made to make larger missiles viable, now these decoys makes them less viable.

Check the cost and size of the new decoys. Also, they are equally effective against all missiles sizes.
 

Offline Kelewan

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • K
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #370 on: March 28, 2023, 06:04:41 AM »
Yes, agree the name needs work. We already have 'missile decoys' - as they are the decoys on offensive missiles.

As it is designed like a missile without engine, 'decoy buoy' could be an appropriate name. But this name could imply a longer life time as it has.
 
'decoy counter measurement' could also be a good name, abbreviated to 'decoy' if context allows it, e.g. 'decoy launcher'
 

Offline Destragon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 151
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #371 on: March 28, 2023, 08:26:57 AM »
I was also confused for a second about the fact that we now have Missile Decoys and Decoy Missiles. I think I would just call the ship-launched ones "flare". Seems fitting enough to me.

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.
I'm reconsidering this, now that we have the preliminary ship decoy rules.
When you have a target that carries a stockpile of decoys and only launches like 1 per incoming salvo, then I guess you could use multi-warhead ASMs to ensure that each missile at least has a portion of their damage hitting the target instead of the entire missile being wasted by the flare. But then again, you could just launch more smaller sized missiles with the same effect, but maybe using a big multi-warhead missile might be more efficient, when you give it other capabilities or missile-launched decoys.
 

Offline KriegsMeister

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • K
  • Posts: 37
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #372 on: March 28, 2023, 09:46:24 AM »
 Ship decoy works I think since the minimum size of 5MSP creates a shadow of 1000T. Makes the delineation between ship and missile decoys quite simple
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2825
  • Thanked: 1106 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #373 on: March 28, 2023, 12:43:23 PM »
Flare as a term would work for me, it's short & sweet and most new (and returning) players would instinctively grasp its meaning without browsing the forums for explanations. It's especially fitting since flares are used to lure away IR (heat-seeking) missiles whereas chaff is used to blind radars in general. Or it could be "decoy flare" if we want to keep the term decoy in the name.

And yeah, I don't think that it needs to be cheaper or smaller. It's literally the last line of active defence - after it there's only shields and armour. Incoming missiles will have to survive AMM's, area defence (which might be more viable in 2.2), final fire, CIWS (which can now play an important role besides the trusty old Fleet-wide final fire) and only then will they get a 50-50 chance to hit a decoy - that won't be launched by the defending ship until it is actually needed. So, the defender is never wasting them but neither is there need to deploy dozens and dozens of them. Or if you find yourself in such a situation, it means your defensive strategy was not sound to begin with.
 

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 230 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #374 on: March 28, 2023, 04:44:46 PM »
I agree with the above posts that Decoy Missile is a confusing name for ship decoys. Flare or chaff is probably a more straightforward name for its purpose.
 
The following users thanked this post: LiquidGold2