v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Droll]

Wait, why would thermal sensors help on an ASM? Missiles can only choose a new target if they have on-board active sensors, correct? Or is it any on-board sensor, as long as the target has an active lock from any source?

If a missile loses an active lock, it can use thermals to acquire a new target - which is particularly good if the target is destroyed before those missiles arrive.

Hold on so what I understand is... in order for a missile to be launched at a target and continue tracking it needs an active lock, but if it loses the lock mid-flight it can instead use a passive thermal lock instead? At that point why not allow missile passives to just lock targets by themselves fire-and-forget style?

When you fire a missile at a target you need an active lock and it will move towards the target until it either reaches it or until your active lock is lost. In that case missiles without sensors of their own are deleted from the game. Missiles with sensors will travel towards the calculated intercept point and will attack any hostile ship they can detect.
Additionally, they can switch target to another vessel if their intended target got destroyed. This was incredibly strong in VB6, when you could launch all salvos at one target and they would switch to ship after ship. In C# all missiles that arrive in the same increment hit the destroyed ship and only subsequent missiles switch targets on their own.
On top of that, the sensors of missiles allowed you to place mine fields and shoot missiles at waypoints. If the enemy got close enough the missiles would start tracking on their own. I have not tried that in C# though.

Yes I know all of this but only onboard active sensors would help you achieve this, now people are saying that passive thermal sensors can also acquire their own targets which would be new. Previously the passives were only useful for sensor buoys.

[kilo]

Okay, I might be wrong about that. It has been a few years since VB6, but I could have sworn that they did retarget.

[QuakeIV]

I was pretty sure thermal missiles could retarget too to be honest.

[mike2R]

Yeah thats how I remember it too - a passive sensor on a missile is fine for targeting, and it used to be incredibly powerful in VB6 since each missile would choose a new target in the same increment it hit if the target it was aiming at was destroyed.  You just had to put enough of a thermal sensor on there that it got a minimum bit of range, and it would pick a new target that was in the same location.

I always meant to experiment with a HARM type missile homing in on active sensors, but I never got around to it.

[Bremen]

In VB at least I'm pretty sure you could fire a missile without an active sensor lock, but only if the missiles themselves had their own sensors and you followed the rather cumbersome process of firing them at a waypoint and letting them retarget. I assume it also works in C# but I haven't tried it.

It usually wasn't worth it due to the fairly high risk of missing if you're off on the timing or the enemy changes course, but it was possible if the goal was creating a stealth missile ship.

[Droll]

Ok I think me only somewhat keeping up with this thread has caused confusion:

I was under the impression we were talking about C# missiles but now everyone is talking VB6. I can't remember if passives could target in VB6 but I think they need actives specifically to target in C# right?

[Bremen]

Ok I think me only somewhat keeping up with this thread has caused confusion:

I was under the impression we were talking about C# missiles but now everyone is talking VB6. I can't remember if passives could target in VB6 but I think they need actives specifically to target in C# right?

My point was I can't confirm since I haven't tried it in C#, but missiles with strictly passive sensors would retarget in VB and I assume that is still true in C#. And if a missile would retarget it's theoretically possible to hit a target without an active lock by the launching ship either.

[nuclearslurpee]

In C# passive sensor missiles have suffered from some bugs, so that may be the source of confusion. I know mines have been impossible for a long time because of these bugs, for example.

[kilo]

In C# passive sensor missiles have suffered from some bugs, so that may be the source of confusion. I know mines have been impossible for a long time because of these bugs, for example.

You are using present perfect. Is this a confirmation that it is still in the game?

[nuclearslurpee]

You are using present perfect. Is this a confirmation that it is still in the game?

I honestly don't know. I don't use mines, and there have been enough purported fixes that haven't worked that you'd have to ask someone else.

[GrandNord]

I've used mines, though with active sensors. They work fine but the salvos from all the mines all target the same ship. Good against small incursions and scouts.

I've used passive missiles fired at waypoints once but I don't think I was deleting the waypoints, so it wasn't working. The missiles where firing fine from outside of MFC range though.

[Scud]

So a lot of good discussion has been had about the PD/missile changes, which I am really looking forward to giving a try.

But I'd like to go back and talk a little bit about the ECM changes. Obviously it now allows you to customize your ECM choices, depending on your fleet composition. This is great, and means that there's more room for specialization. But... if the size and cost is fixed, past a certain size of ship, you're always going to put a full suite of jammers on a ship. It only really feels like there will be meaningful choices at smaller sizes of ships. This may be the intended behavior! In which case, fair enough. But, going off of the example ships posted, it ends up looking very similar to the previous system when there isn't any kind of size scaling for ECM.

The removal of ECCM components is extremely welcome.

[nuclearslurpee]

So a lot of good discussion has been had about the PD/missile changes, which I am really looking forward to giving a try.

But I'd like to go back and talk a little bit about the ECM changes. Obviously it now allows you to customize your ECM choices, depending on your fleet composition. This is great, and means that there's more room for specialization. But... if the size and cost is fixed, past a certain size of ship, you're always going to put a full suite of jammers on a ship. It only really feels like there will be meaningful choices at smaller sizes of ships. This may be the intended behavior! In which case, fair enough. But, going off of the example ships posted, it ends up looking very similar to the previous system when there isn't any kind of size scaling for ECM.

The removal of ECCM components is extremely welcome.

I can't speak for all the EW systems, but I do know for sure that the decoys must scale to ship size to be effective, so cramming every system into a large ship is not a sure thing. However, cramming many systems into a larger ship is I think a reasonable design pattern, we have something similar right now in command modules although the cost/benefit analysis for those is a bit different. I'm not sure if it is intended but it does at least seem reasonable given the current state of the game.

[Jorgen_CAB]

There is no inherent issue with ships of certain sizes being more efficient than ships of other sizes in some respects. Large versus small already have their pros and cons in the game and being able to fit components such as ECM, defenses, command and more efficient engines is one of the more effective things a big ship will benefit off.

[Scud]

All good points. I agree that there should be economies of scale when it comes to ship design. It all depends on what Steve’s intention is with the feature, really.

Having thought more about it, I definitely prefer it to the system we have for fighter/small craft ECM that we have in place now, where fighter ECM is basically useless because it is so down-tiered.

Of course, I will admit I’m an electronic warfare geek IRL, so I’m excited to see that part of the game expanding.