Aurora 4x
New Players => VB Tutorials => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on January 16, 2010, 05:28:28 PM
-
-
Not sure im missing something, but i dont see any text in this post ?!
-
Looking at the date of the post, it's from a time when the database got moved. Either forum software or domain host. The single quotes in the raw data buggered things up.
-
Hello,
I'm pretty new here and I'm collecting all Tutorials in a word doc for easy read, is the post missing the same on AuroraWiki named Beam Overview ?
Thanks :)
Edit: link missed.
Edit2: sorry it seems I'm not able to insert a link. . .
-
Hello,
I'm pretty new here and I'm collecting all Tutorials in a word doc for easy read, is the post missing the same on AuroraWiki named Beam Overview ?
Thanks :)
Edit: link missed.
Edit2: sorry it seems I'm not able to insert a link. . .
You can, but it will be munged up for a bit.
-
Thanks Erik, in the meantime here the link:
hxxp: aurorawiki. pentarch. org/index. php?title=Beam_Overview
Is it the correct post missing?
-
In this tutorial, Summary_of_Beam_Weapons_and_CIWS (http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Summary_of_Beam_Weapons_and_CIWS), CIWS mechanics described as follows:
1) The basic system is a dual half size gauss cannon. As the range is limited to 10,000 km, I have reduced the size slightly from 6HS to 5HS. As it is a dual mount, the rate of fire for the system with therefore be double the racial gauss cannon rate of fire
2) The integral fire control system is assumed to be a 4x speed installation. The normal 4HS size is then divided by (maximum racial fire control range / 10,000) as the CIWS requires a max 10,000 km range. Finally the resulting size is halved to account for the fact this system can only defend the mounting ship, which makes things a lot simpler.
3) Turret gears are added using the normal rules for turrets with a tracking speed equal to that of the above fire control
4) The integral active sensor uses the size that would be required for a resolution-zero installation with a range of 30,000 km. This is longer than the max range of the system but it needs a little tracking time. Note that this is not an active sensor that will detect anything else. It is purely a point blank range missile tracker.
5) If ECCM is available, it can be added to the CIWS and will use 0.5HS. As this is a reduced-sized system, it will have half the capability of the regular system
6) As the gauss cannon are half size, the base chance to hit for the CIWS is 50% (modified by missile speed, crew grade and electronic warfare). This is actually slightly higher than it would be for a half-size gauss cannon with a short-range fire control but I am assuming it fires at even shorter range than other anti-missile systems.
Unfortunately I don't understand how all the CIWS mechanics tied up all together. Specifically:
* Beam Fire Control Range
* Beam Fire Control Tracking Speed
* Active Sensor Strength
* Turret Rotating Gear
* ECCM
None of them seem to effect anything beside size\cost.
P.S. the ECCM entry says 0.5 instead of 0.5HS, and Base Chance to Hit is always 50%
-
In this tutorial, Summary_of_Beam_Weapons_and_CIWS (http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Summary_of_Beam_Weapons_and_CIWS), CIWS mechanics described as follows:
Unfortunately I don't understand how all the CIWS mechanics tied up all together. Specifically:
* Beam Fire Control Range
* Beam Fire Control Tracking Speed
* Active Sensor Strength
* Turret Rotating Gear
* ECCM
None of them seem to effect anything beside size\cost.
P.S. the ECCM entry says 0.5 instead of 0.5HS, and Base Chance to Hit is always 50%
Beam fire control range improves the reducibility of the system, due to fire control size multipliers, so it makes the CIWS smaller with higher levels, but doesn't affect cost.
Active sensor strength tech level is essentially the same effect as the beam fire control tech. for CIWS minimization. No differences in cost.
Fire control tracking speed increases the max tracking speed of the turret, which is a very important stat, and directly affects how well it can intercept a fast target. Incoming missiles going at higher speeds than the tracking speed get a large evasion bonus, that can potentially make them impossible to hit if they go too fast. Increasing this makes turret cost and size go up, presumably due to both the increasing cost of higher-tech fire control (doesn't affect the size in this case), and requiring more turret gear to get to the speed needed (which affects cost and size).
In theory, the turret rotation gear means how much tonnage needs to be used to allow the turret in question match the highest speed the fire control tech set will allow you, but directly changing it doesn't seem to do anything. I suspect this specific tech works like the Armor tech level in magazines, where the highest tech available is chosen, rather than giving a choice in the matter.
-
1. Indeed, 'Beam fire control range' and 'Active sensor strength' reduce the size of their respective components. I just want to confirm whether it has any effect on hit chance, and what was means by "The integral fire control system is assumed to be a 4x speed installation. "
2. I assumed that higher 'Turret Rotating Gear' should increase 'Chance to Hit' on slow ships, but it said that chance to hit is only modified by modified by missile speed, crew grade and electronic warfare. Why crew grade if its autonomous system.
3. ECCM is said to have half the capability. Which means that depending on how its rounded either all the odd or all even values are meaningless. Which is it?
4. Also, concerning turret tracking speed, those are only taken into account if they are higher than the ships speed, correct?
-
1.) No effect. The inbuilt tracking system fires at 1,000 kilometers with 4x your empires maximum tracking speed tech.
2.) Higher tech turret gear reduces the space required to bring the weapon up to 4x tracking speed. Note that it takes more gear when your empires tracking speed itself increases.
3.) ECM is actually given multiplied by 10; i.e. an ECM 1 gives a ship an ECM score of 10. Therefore, a half strength ECCM gives an ECCM score of 5 per tech level.
4.) It's irrelevant for CIWS, which will always be turreted.
AFAIK the turret tracking speed is always used if a weapon is mounted in a turret.
Otherwise, the game always uses the higher of the ship's speed or the empire's basic tracking speed tech. This sets the WEAPON's tracking speed level. However, what determines the final tracking speed used is still determined by the Beam Fire Control; in other words, the shot will use the lowest tracking speed of either the Fire Control or the Weapon when taking any given shot.
An unturreted laser mounting on an immobile satellite has a tracking speed of 4,000 kms because of it's empire technology. A fire control with 16,000 kms tracking speed is used to target an enemy ship. The shot is only fired at 4,000 kms because the weapon cannot track faster than that even though the fire control can. The same applies in the opposite situation of a high-tracking speed weapon and a low-tracking speed fire control.
-
4.) It's irrelevant for CIWS, which will always be turreted.
Though, I'd like to note that the weapon (not the entire shot, just the mount) tracking speed may (haven't explicitly tested it but I think this is the case) equal the highest of your empire's Turret Tracking 10% gear, the ship that is moving, or the turret platform speed.
Granted, as you mentioned, it's still irrelevant, mainly because there aren't going to be any commercial designs worth looking at that would be out-speeding your BFC max. Unless you got some real weird research patterns.
-
I double checked. Turreted weapons always use the turret tracking speed regardless of ship speed.
-
1. What confuses me is that such beam control, with 4x tracking speed, suppose to be 2 HS not 4HS. And my assumption is that CIWS shouldn't need separate trackers per turret.
2. While higher tech gear reduced turret HS, it has no effect on my CIWS, whether its 1250km/s or 10000km/s the HS stays (Dual GC: 5HS Turret: .16 HS Fire Control: 2 HS Sensor .3 HS ECCM: 0, with default techs)
AFAIK the turret tracking speed is always used if a weapon is mounted in a turret.
Otherwise, the game always uses the higher of the ship's speed or the empire's basic tracking speed tech. This sets the WEAPON's tracking speed level. However, what determines the final tracking speed used is still determined by the Beam Fire Control; in other words, the shot will use the lowest tracking speed of either the Fire Control or the Weapon when taking any given shot.
It seems weird that hull mounted weapon would use either 'ship's speed or the empire's basic tracking speed tech', but hull mounted turret that should offer more flexibility on top of that, will only consider its own tracking speed. Wouldn't it make sense that it would use the highest of all of the above? And this question wasn't related to CIWS per se, but to turrets in general.
-
1.) CIWS is a special case; it uses a special fire control with only 1000 kilometer range. The FC is reduced weight compared to what you can design normally, as are other components.
2.) As stated earlier, the selector is bugged: CIWS will always use your best turret gear reduction tech, regardless of what you select. Either that, or its bugged period. *shrug*.
3.) I suppose, but since there's no reason to mount a turret except to increase your tracking speed this will virtually never come up as an actual downside for a ship.
-
Interestingly, turrets with a designed tracking speed of 0 end up behaving like unturreted weapons.
Theoretically useful if you don't need additional tracking speed but you do want to armour your weapons.
-
1. Exactly, that why I am surprised that a turret FC base size is twice of a standard 4x FC size (either that or its assumed that CIWS would need an FC per gun, which doesn't make sense to me)
3. Not if its a back up. For example if I put it on reconnaissance cruiser, obviously it should make a difference if its making full speed maneuvers or parked as support for JP defense.
4. Any idea what is the full hit chance formula? (i.e. how missile speed, crew grade and electronic warfare comes to play)
-
Interestingly, turrets with a designed tracking speed of 0 end up behaving like unturreted weapons.
Theoretically useful if you don't need additional tracking speed but you do want to armour your weapons.
Oh, does it? That's a relief. I was worried about trying to find a way to defend myself against mesons, and I was worried that I couldn't internally armor turrets without having to use a bunch of gear just to match the speed of my ship.
-
1. Exactly, that why I am surprised that a turret FC base size is twice of a standard 4x FC size (either that or its assumed that CIWS would need an FC per gun, which doesn't make sense to me)
3. Not if its a back up. For example if I put it on reconnaissance cruiser, obviously it should make a difference if its making full speed maneuvers or parked as support for JP defense.
4. Any idea what is the full hit chance formula? (i.e. how missile speed, crew grade and electronic warfare comes to play)
1. If true then CIWS would still be using the old base BFC base size of 1 HS rather than the current 0.5 HS base size. (Bug)
4. Something like: Base * min(1, Track_speed / target_speed) * crewgrade * moral * R
Base is normally 100%, can be lower for reduced size gauss.
R = 1 - fire_range/(max_range * (100% - max(0%, ECM - ECCM)))
R (CIWS) = 1 since CIWS fire at point blank range
Not included: Officer fighter bonus when applicable.
-
Base * min(1, Track_speed / target_speed) * crewgrade * moral * R
Base is normally 100%, can be lower for reduced size gauss.
R = 1 - fire_range/(max_range * (100% - max(0%, ECM - ECCM)))
R (CIWS) = 1 since CIWS fire at point blank range
Not included: Officer fighter bonus when applicable.
That is very helpful, but it also suggest that your max hit rate is equal to your base rate. So I hope that the Hit Rate display is bugged and isn't always 50%.
Last things. Concerning Jump Shock, does CIWS self-contained nature make it impervious to its effects?
-
That is very helpful, but it also suggest that your max hit rate is equal to your base rate. So I hope that the Hit Rate display is bugged and isn't always 50%.
CIWS is 2 half sized gauss guns, so it is always 2x 50% (2 cannons each with 50% hit chance).
Last things. Concerning Jump Shock, does CIWS self-contained nature make it impervious to its effects?
Yes.
-
@sublight. NM, my bad. For some reasons I thought min include all that formula. (that why multi tasking doesn't work, kids don't text and drive, also your last min should have been max)
@83athom. If not for crewgrade, moral and Officer fighter bonus, for me those would be bad odds even under the best circumstances.
-
@sublight. NM, my bad. For some reasons I thought min include all that formula. (that why multi tasking doesn't work, kids don't text and drive, also your last min should have been max)
@83athom. If not for crewgrade, moral and Officer fighter bonus, for me those would be bad odds even under the best circumstances.
It's the drawback for using half-size gauss cannons. The best way to mitigate it is, aside from crew, is using several and researching higher fire rates. 2x2x4 CIWS can filter quite a bit of damage, assuming you put any armor on the ships they're used for.
Either way, the CIWS is a commercial design. If you really need that 90%-100% hit ratio per shot, you can design turrets using larger gauss cannons for use on military ships.
-
All our tech benefit to tracking\targeting translate into less size. Does that mean that 'Max Tracking Time Bonus vs Missiles' tech doesn't have any effect on CIWS? (not in the formula above)
-
In theory you gain a cumulative +2% tracking bonus per 5-second tick the missiles are in active scanning range up to your max tech, but in practice my v6.4 event logs have never reflected this.
Also, min/max corrected.
-
All our tech benefit to tracking\targeting translate into less size. Does that mean that 'Max Tracking Time Bonus vs Missiles' tech doesn't have any effect on CIWS? (not in the formula above)
BFC Tracking Speed translate into a larger more expensive CIWS, with increased tracking speed capability.
Turret gear size tech works to counteract a portion of the size and cost increase.
-
Currently:
FC range will effect FC component size.
FC tracking will effect Turret component size.
Turret gear size will effect nothing.
Either its bugged too or I am too stupid to figure out the finer points of this. Either way I give up, I'll update it as is on the wiki on my next break.
-
Well I have updated the entries to the best of my understanding, of all the above:
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Turret
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=CIWS
4. Something like: Base * min(1, Track_speed / target_speed) * crewgrade * moral * R
Base is normally 100%, can be lower for reduced size gauss.
R = 1 - fire_range/(max_range * (100% - max(0%, ECM - ECCM)))
R (CIWS) = 1 since CIWS fire at point blank range
I wanted to add this formula, but upon a second look I am not its correct i.e. if R(CIWS) = 1. Then:
Chance to Hit = 50% * min(1, Tracking_Speed / Target_Speed) * Crew_Grade * Crew_Moral
Which doesn't factor the ECCM component in anyway...
-
@83athom. If not for crewgrade, moral and Officer fighter bonus, for me those would be bad odds even under the best circumstances.
Think of it this way, instead of 2x 50% lets use a 1x 100% at a fire rate of 5 per increment. The 1x would have the best chance of getting all of its shots to hit, so its almost guaranteed to hit 5 missiles at final fire. The 2x will fire 10 shots at a 50% hit chance (usually 60%+ after crew grade and tracking bonus), so the average missiles hit would be 5. However, the 2x also has the chances to hit 10 missiles in a single increment, but it also has the chance to miss all of its shots. The other benefit is that its a self contained unit, so it is immune to HPMs.
-
still remember probability from Uni, so I understand hit chance. What I was saying is that*, that no matter how superior your technical capabilities are, you Base Hit chance will always be 50% (since tracking\ECM can only reduce it ** ) which means that your base chance to hit would be 75%, 87.5%, 94% (ROF 1,2,3)
Those numbers aren't encouraging, especially if you have a volley of more than one missile coming your way, in which case the chance to take them all down plummet.
*I was, assuming that formula is correct
** I haven't checked if grade\moral is can range above 1, but if it does it would be weird that all my Empire expertise can't improve my autonomous system hit chance but my crew feelings can :/
-
well, against realistically dangerous threats, your to-hit will never be 100% anyway, because the missiles will be faster than your tracking speed.. you dont even want 100% to hit, since then you cant leverage your bonuses.
-
still remember probability from Uni, so I understand hit chance. What I was saying is that*, that no matter how superior your technical capabilities are, you Base Hit chance will always be 50% (since tracking\ECM can only reduce it ** ) which means that your base chance to hit would be 75%, 87.5%, 94% (ROF 1,2,3)
Those numbers aren't encouraging, especially if you have a volley of more than one missile coming your way, in which case the chance to take them all down plummet.
*I was, assuming that formula is correct
** I haven't checked if grade\moral is can range above 1, but if it does it would be weird that all my Empire expertise can't improve my autonomous system hit chance but my crew feelings can :/
You understand they're commercial designs, right? If you want near-100%-accurate turrets with arbritrarily high tracking speeds, you're going to have to make a military design instead, and utilize 5 HS gauss turrets. It's the only way.
The point of CIWS is not to stop a missile bombardment dead in it's tracks, it's to filter damage from said bombardments. Which is why they need to be paired up with armor to be worth it's grain in salt.
If you want an actually effective anti-missile defense, you're going to have to dedicate an entire naval military doctrine to it. Anti-Missile missiles, area defense turret escorts escorting in their parent ships at range to increase the missile-engagement envelope available to them, and accurate final-fire systems.
-
You understand they're commercial designs, right?
Surely you realize that a "commercial" designation is meaningless, based on the arbitrary definition we use for convenience sake, and in this case just away to offer our "commercial" vessels a defensive capability. I assure you that a Phalanx CIWS on a military "commercial" replenishment ship and a Destroyer will function just the same, or we would have a military design as well.
The point of CIWS is not to stop a missile bombardment dead in it's tracks
The point of CIWS is to have an automatic, self-contained system. No one said it should be impervious, I just pointed out that according the formula above, if true, you can't improve a single CIWS hit chance no matter how advanced your technology is.
-
Surely you realize that a "commercial" designation is meaningless, based on the arbitrary definition we use for convenience sake, and in this case just away to offer our "commercial" vessels a defensive capability. I assure you that a Phalanx CIWS on a military "commercial" replenishment ship and a Destroyer will function just the same, or we would have a military design as well.
The point of CIWS is to have an automatic, self-contained system. No one said it should be impervious, I just pointed out that according the formula above, if true, you can't improve a single CIWS hit chance no matter how advanced your technology is.
Technically, you can. See: Rate of fire. I think tracking time might work too, and since you can put size 1 resolution 1 active sensors on commercial vessels, you may get even further bonuses if you see the missile coming.
-
I just pointed out that according the formula above, if true, you can't improve a single CIWS hit chance no matter how advanced your technology is.
there's no practical difference between how this works for CIWS and how it works for anything else; your actual to hits will never be 100% on _any_ missile defense system, except against missiles that are so crappy that they arn't a realistic threat to anything.
TL3 missile:24000 km/s
TL3 CIWS: 12,000 km/s tracking ~size 7.5, 2x3 shots: 25% hit chance, 36,000km/s of 'intercepts', chance of a total miss: 18%
TL3 laser turret: 12,000 km/s tracking, 2x size4+FC: 50% hit chance, 24,000 km/s of 'intercepts', chance of a total miss: 25%
-
That is exactly the point, according to that formula it doesn't matter how crappy those missiles are. If I strap on a warhead and charge a state of the art CIWS using nothing but my spacesuit thrusters, a war cry in my throat and hands spread to the side because of some misguided notion that it looks cool. The Ciws will still have only 50% base hit chance...
Mind you, i understand why it is mechanically and the reason for it, and how its balanced with higher tech = less HS-> you can put two CIWS. But it just make less sense to me, especially if that fully automatic, self-contained system will enjoy crew grade\moral on military ships...
-
That is exactly the point, according to that formula it doesn't matter how crappy those missiles are. If I strap on a warhead and charge a state of the art CIWS using nothing but my spacesuit thrusters, a war cry in my throat and hands spread to the side because of some misguided notion that it looks cool. The Ciws will still have only 50% base hit chance...
Well, you'll probably miss the ship entirely at that rate.
It's not the targeting system that makes it likely to miss, it's the gun itself. If you really want that 100% chance, use an escort ship with full size gauss or turreted mesons or something. That's really all there is to it. Lets you protect multiple ships at once, too.
-
If I strap on a warhead and charge a state of the art CIWS using nothing but my spacesuit thrusters, a war cry in my throat and hands spread to the side because of some misguided notion that it looks cool. The Ciws will still have only 50% base hit chance...
But they fire two shots at 50%, statistically one will hit and the chance for two is there while a system that fires one at 100% can only hit one. Also, even though base hit chance is 50%, I've seen CIWS hit chance at 70% from just crew grade modifiers not including the tracking bonus you get on missiles in combat. Now I will concede the fact that because half size gauss makes it so the base hit is always 50% you can never improve that with tech. You can, however, improve the rate of fire with tech which increases overall hit chances.
-
But they fire two shots at 50%, statistically one will hit and the chance for two is there while a system that fires one at 100% can only hit one.
You might be misunderstanding probability a bit, though, I don't think it's a bad thing that CIWS gets 50% chance to hit.
Going based on gauss cannon Rate Of Fire tech:
2 shots at 50% accuracy, without bonuses:
Have a 25 % chance to hit zero shots.
Have a 50 % chance to hit one shot.
Have a 25% chance to hit both shots.
1 shot at 100% accuracy, without bonuses or penalties:
100% chance to hit one shot.
That said, I still think CIWS should still exist as they are, specifically because I feel the military maintenance of a full sized gauss cannon is the cost of having such an accurate weapon system.