Author Topic: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 62418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carthar

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • C
  • Posts: 16
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #330 on: March 12, 2023, 10:42:25 PM »
Do the missile changes make 'beam only' play less viable?   

AMM spam will be much more scary with these changes.   Maintenance supply use will be insane for a PD fleet designed to counter AMM spam.

Interesting. Do you might pointing to which changes give you that impression?

Between the improvement to the PD target allocation algorithm, and the missile changes only really affecting larger missiles, not to mention the addition of missile decoys for ships, I felt like AMM spam was going to much less of a nuisance going forward. All depends on playtesting of course.

So for AMM spam I mean, when NPR or spoilers use their AMM against ship targets.  You get a LARGE volume of small damage missiles when you close to beam range.     

The current PD system only has overkill on a volley.  It doesn't have underkill as you just kept firing at the next missile until you ran out of PD guns. 
The new system appears to have overkill on individual missiles, so more PD is wasted.  It will also make underkill more likely as if all guns assigned to kill that missile miss, there is no further backup.  So there is more leakage. 
Missiles move so fast that using longer ranged weapons isn't going to get you more shots compared to gauss guns. 
So PD looks a lot weaker. 

PD also shoots so fast and so often that maintenance supply is going to be a problem.   I've moved away from using a lot of 5s recharge lasers due to the maintenance costs of rapid fire.  To compensate PD ships will now need a good fraction of their tonnage to be maintenance storage.  So PD is going to be more costly at the build phase and operation phase.

I agree however play testing will determine if this is the case.  This is just my interpretation of how what is written will play out.  I hope I am wrong. 
 

Offline kilo

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • k
  • Posts: 249
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #331 on: March 13, 2023, 12:11:04 AM »
That remains to be seen. The changes that allow a small number of higher quality missiles to pass the PD screen will let some small AMMs through. That will make it harder to defend your ship. You should not neglect the changes to missile targeting, agility and electronic warfare though. These will have a significant impact for dumb missiles, which have a harder time intercepting their targets. On top of that, fractional warheads will be great for destroying incoming missiles and pretty useless when engaging ships.
 

Offline Snoman314

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 127
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #332 on: March 13, 2023, 12:44:56 AM »
The current PD system only has overkill on a volley.  It doesn't have underkill as you just kept firing at the next missile until you ran out of PD guns. 
The new system appears to have overkill on individual missiles, so more PD is wasted.  It will also make underkill more likely as if all guns assigned to kill that missile miss, there is no further backup.  So there is more leakage. 
Missiles move so fast that using longer ranged weapons isn't going to get you more shots compared to gauss guns. 
So PD looks a lot weaker. 

I was skeptical, so I wrote a python script to simulate old vs new PD allocation schemes. This scenario has the best possible scenario for the old (current) PD allocation system: All missiles in one volley, and all PD fired as single shots, so no overkill. In both cases, it's 100 PD against 20 missile, with a 20% chance to hit for each shot.

After running each scenario 10000 times, and averaging the results, it seems you're correct. There'll be more leakers:

Code: [Select]
Old PD scheme:
number of shots fired on average:   92.1212
number of missiles stopped on average: 18.4002

New PD scheme:
number of shots fired on average:   67.1664
number of missiles stopped on average: 13.4576

(It assumes the PD allocated to a missile stops firing once that missile is destroyed, can't remember if that's correct. Was mainly worried about missile stop rate.)

PD also shoots so fast and so often that maintenance supply is going to be a problem.   I've moved away from using a lot of 5s recharge lasers due to the maintenance costs of rapid fire.  To compensate PD ships will now need a good fraction of their tonnage to be maintenance storage.  So PD is going to be more costly at the build phase and operation phase.

I agree however play testing will determine if this is the case.  This is just my interpretation of how what is written will play out.  I hope I am wrong. 

Well from my simulation, it seems like MSP use will drop, due to less shots being fired.

My code if anyone wants a look: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P2RitplalMUODffKk2S4qUC_8bz_qqqs/view?usp=sharing
« Last Edit: March 13, 2023, 12:48:27 AM by Snoman314 »
 
The following users thanked this post: punchkid, Carthar

Offline Rince Wind

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • R
  • Posts: 102
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #333 on: March 13, 2023, 03:17:24 AM »
The enemy might use AMMs that are no threat at all to ships though, with warheads with less than 1 damage to make them better at their job of destroying missiles.
 
The following users thanked this post: dukea42, Snoman314

Offline Snoman314

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 127
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #334 on: March 13, 2023, 04:45:58 AM »
The enemy might use AMMs that are no threat at all to ships though, with warheads with less than 1 damage to make them better at their job of destroying missiles.

That's true. There'll be a strong case for fractional warheads in AMMs, which can't damage ships.

Also, add in a single ship decoy (to half the number of missiles that need to be fired on) and the hit average goes from 65% up to 90%.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #335 on: March 13, 2023, 06:32:19 AM »
I'm travelling for the next couple of weeks, so there probably won't be any more updates until I get back.
 

Offline villaincomer

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • v
  • Posts: 23
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #336 on: March 13, 2023, 06:43:16 AM »
Does that include a 2.2 release?

Safe travels!
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #337 on: March 13, 2023, 09:25:30 AM »
I was skeptical, so I wrote a python script to simulate old vs new PD allocation schemes. This scenario has the best possible scenario for the old (current) PD allocation system: All missiles in one volley, and all PD fired as single shots, so no overkill. In both cases, it's 100 PD against 20 missile, with a 20% chance to hit for each shot.

After running each scenario 10000 times, and averaging the results, it seems you're correct. There'll be more leakers:

Code: [Select]
Old PD scheme:
number of shots fired on average:   92.1212
number of missiles stopped on average: 18.4002

New PD scheme:
number of shots fired on average:   67.1664
number of missiles stopped on average: 13.4576

(It assumes the PD allocated to a missile stops firing once that missile is destroyed, can't remember if that's correct. Was mainly worried about missile stop rate.)

I wonder how this case looks if you actually include salvo size effects in the current (<2.2) implementation, as these are not negligible unless you are using single laser turrets for PD (which is...not optimal, anyways). The actual difference may be less than what we see here.

That said, I don't think beam PD getting weaker is a bad thing... some are complaining about beam-only fleets being less viable, but this is kind of the point behind all these missile/PD changes, isn't it? Currently, there is basically no downside to going beams-only because missiles are weaker, costlier, and more logistically demanding than beams (and Steve has shown recently that this is true even when you pursue a fighter-based doctrine, contradicting the conventional wisdom that missile bombers were the optimal form of weaponry). If buffing missiles makes going beam-only more of a challenge then I think that is a net benefit for players, at least I certainly hope no one here plays Aurora because they like how easy it is...

IMO, while the mechanics should not force this there should generally be an overall push towards combined-arms fleets as having more tactical options and flexibility should be a strong payoff for the added research and resource investment for a varied fleet composition. Yes, I can make a serviceable fleet by slapping railguns on everything and driving closer so I can hit the enemy with my sword, but this doctrine has the chief advantage of saving on weapons R&D, so maybe should not be the most effective strategy by default?

For AMM spam specifically, for beam-only fleets the solution remains the same as always, which is strategic superiority either through superior tonnage on station or superior technology (i.e. ECM). If the player is not limited to beams only, then there are more options including counter-AMM spam to distract enemy targeting. I readily agree that AMM spam is not very exciting to play against, but against the NPRs it is rarely an insurmountable problem even for beam-only fleets as it is easy enough to concentrate against NPR fleets (or spoiler... things) and NPRs do not use AMM spam as a cheese strategy with entire fleets of purely AMM ships. A player race would have that option, but then it is up to the player how they want to house-rule such a cheesy tactic, as always.
 

Offline LiquidGold2

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • L
  • Posts: 16
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #338 on: March 13, 2023, 01:07:21 PM »
Quote from: nuclearslurpee link=topic=13098. msg164612#msg164612 date=1678717530

That said, I don't think beam PD getting weaker is a bad thing. . .  some are complaining about beam-only fleets being less viable, but this is kind of the point behind all these missile/PD changes, isn't it?
[. . . ]
but against the NPRs it is rarely an insurmountable problem even for beam-only fleets as it is easy enough to concentrate against NPR fleets (or spoiler. . .  things) and NPRs do not use AMM spam as a cheese strategy with entire fleets of purely AMM ships.

I prefer to run beam-only games, and time and again I've found that ton for ton, I have to bring more PD than Anti-ship to every engagement.  And it's not because of the ASMs; I can handle those readily enough.  It's the AMMs; they are much harder to hit, there are a lot more of them per salvo, the salvos are more frequent, and there are a lot more salvos.  I've had entire fleets laugh off ASMs, then utterly melt under AMMs when they close for the kill.  And in in the case of Spoilers, it's not like you can exhaust their supplies; they will sometimes be sitting on tens of thousands of AMMs.  Hopefully some of the changes like the Fractional Warheads, Multiple Warheads, and the removal of Missile Agility will take the sting out of AMMs as ASMs, but PD costing MSP and the new 'leakiness' may make it a wash; we'll have to see what the playtesting shows.

Honestly, I'm hoping the NPR changes will finally allow us the option of disabling missiles entirely; don't get me wrong, I do think a lot of the changes are positive ones, and I fully intend on playing around with them when the time comes.  But I just want the option to be able to run beam fleets without having to dedicate over half of my tonnage to missile defense.  It's irritating when you just want to have a swordfight and the other guy keeps bringing a gun instead.
 
The following users thanked this post: Carthar, lumporr

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #339 on: March 13, 2023, 02:19:51 PM »
Honestly, I'm hoping the NPR changes will finally allow us the option of disabling missiles entirely; don't get me wrong, I do think a lot of the changes are positive ones, and I fully intend on playing around with them when the time comes.  But I just want the option to be able to run beam fleets without having to dedicate over half of my tonnage to missile defense.  It's irritating when you just want to have a swordfight and the other guy keeps bringing a gun instead.

I think this would be the only way to get what you (and others) want; I don't see Steve arbitrarily nerfing the guns just so that swords can be viable without running shields, to use a tenuous analogy - especially when the consensus has been that guns need, and are now getting, a buff.
 

Offline Carthar

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • C
  • Posts: 16
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #340 on: March 13, 2023, 03:11:55 PM »
First off, thanks for the code runs.  Your data is very interesting!  With a bit of tweaking, the code will also be useful for determining the optimal gauss cannon size.

One minor note: Even though the PD will fire less, the current system doesn't use MSP for PD fire. 
 

Offline Carthar

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • C
  • Posts: 16
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #341 on: March 13, 2023, 03:30:15 PM »
IMO, while the mechanics should not force this there should generally be an overall push towards combined-arms fleets as having more tactical options and flexibility should be a strong payoff for the added research and resource investment for a varied fleet composition.

I agree that more depth and more tactical options are always a great thing.  The changes make missile design more interesting.  However doesn't this just make the current meta of box launcher shoot and scoot fleets even better?
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #342 on: March 13, 2023, 07:40:05 PM »
Do the missile changes make 'beam only' play less viable?   

AMM spam will be much more scary with these changes.   Maintenance supply use will be insane for a PD fleet designed to counter AMM spam.

I think a lot is going to depend on how the AI designs end up handling the changes. My gut feeling, looking at the changes so far, is that there's now counters to most tactics - heavy beam based point defense, a dominant tactic now, is probably going to be counterable by large laser warhead missiles. AMM spam might now be worthless against ships if it uses <1 damage warheads, or less effective against missiles if it continues to use 1 damage ones. A mixed point defense setup combining AMM, point defense, and potentially area defense and CIWS will avoid any weaknesses but also be both research and tonnage heavy, and so on. But if you took the same designs from 2.1 and imported them into 2.2 they would probably balance out about the same.

In a way that does make beam only less viable, but I think of it less as it getting weaker and more like a rock only strategy in rock paper scissors gets weaker if you start adding more options than just the original three.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kelewan

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #343 on: March 13, 2023, 07:47:58 PM »
IMO, while the mechanics should not force this there should generally be an overall push towards combined-arms fleets as having more tactical options and flexibility should be a strong payoff for the added research and resource investment for a varied fleet composition.

I agree that more depth and more tactical options are always a great thing.  The changes make missile design more interesting.  However doesn't this just make the current meta of box launcher shoot and scoot fleets even better?

Obviously, we can't know without actually playing the update, but I think the general sense will be that box launchers are easier to counter with the greater set of options available. One of the big changes that is being underestimated by many is the retargeting module for missiles that allows missiles which would miss the target to not explode and get another chance in the next 5s increment. For AMMs this means if you can intercept the incoming ASMs far enough out you will get several chances to hit for each AMM, which opens up a lot of options that I haven't seen people exploring yet in the discussions.

Beam-only fleets have always been tactically weak against box launcher swarms and that will not really change, but again I think it is good if beam-only fleets have some serious drawbacks and this one is not really major since no NPRs use this tactic. Box launcher swarms also retain the usual strategic difficulties (missile logistics without reloading, ordnance costs, poor JP assault ability, etc.) which beam-only fleets can exploit to even the odds.


AMM spam might now be worthless against ships if it uses <1 damage warheads, or less effective against missiles if it continues to use 1 damage ones.

This is also a key point; coupled with the removal of missile agility, even early AMMs will have some 15% or 20% (fractionally) lower chance to hit with current designs. Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.
 

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 229 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #344 on: March 14, 2023, 04:30:01 PM »
Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.

This is really a high hope, the sub-1 warheads do not save much space to begin with. AMMs will become the toy of the riches as the cost of the AMMs needed to shoot down an ASM will be (far) more than the cost of said ASM.